From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >
Guide to deletion

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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

RiRia

RiRia (  | 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)

self written vanity spam, doesn't appear to be notable, all her appearances are unnamed characters and despite the lengthy list of music awards, none appear to be particularly notable nor is there coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 19:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment on heroism. Intrigued by the notion of a "hero" in a commercial for (to take just one of the examples provided) United Airlines, I clicked on the link provided. Within it, somebody plays flute for four seconds. Plays it well, but without any heroics. If it's claimed that I'm merely being pedantic, and obviously what's meant was "the protagonist" or "the main character", fair enough; however, I'd disagree with that description too. It makes me wonder about the reliability of the other claims made in this article. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 08:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Polyarc reactor

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

Article reads primarily as an advertisement for a the polyarc reactor. I think that it is sufficient to give it a mention in Gas chromatography#Detectors. Chenomic ( talk) 23:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article subject is a bit niche, but is notable in Wikipedia definition. The first page of Google (search linked above) turns enough good sources to demonstrate notability, but if needed I can pick a few specific ones. Anton.bersh ( talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an article about a particular company's product, using the trade name. If there is a generic name, the article could be rewritten without mentioning the company, except possibly as an external link.. Otherwise ithe key content could be integrated into either flame ionization detector or if necessary gas chromatography (GC) DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into Flame ionization detector. It's already mentioned there, and it's just a method for enhancing the function of the detector. There's undue coverage of the item by having its own page (and Polyarc is a trademarked name).—  rsjaffe  🗣️ 05:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. All positive comments here were discovered to have been sockpuppets. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Heiko Schrang

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

Not enough notable. Lacks in-depth, independent coverage from reliable pubs. All the sources are in a foreign language (German), of which I have a basic understanding. Source one is from a reliable pub, but just a passing mention. Source two, not notable pub, reliability is also questionable, which is beside the fact, cause it's just nothing but passing mentions. Source three, reliable pub, but just single line one word passing mention. Source four, reliable pub, but same story, just a few lines mention. Finally, source five seems to be the only source with some in-depth coverage, but not a notable pub, reliability is also at stake. Reads like a promo. Now, If the BLP is a case of Sources Exist, then one is welcome to list them either here or add em in the article. Update: Since my initial nom, 4 new sources have been introduced. And they really don't do much. This from Die Tageszeitung is just a passing mention, it reads: Nerling was always out and about with his camera at the rallies, interviewing participants or other alternative media makers such as Heiko Schrang (Schrang TV). This from DER SPIEGEL is a Primary Source (interview). This from some random pub named Muslim-Markt is also an interview titled Muslim market interviews Heiko Schrang - author of the book "The lie of the century that only insiders know.". This is, however, a short bio, from a non-notable (judging by the search results regarding it) book named Was War Wann. Tame ( talk) 17:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I checked all sources and they are reliable. You mentioned that Source two is not notable. So are questioning Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a reliable source? Schrang is well known in the scene of what is called "Alternative Media" in Germany and the articel is as deep as there are reliable sources for. -- Bestof2022 ( talk) 22:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Bestof2022, I searched for FAZ.NET on google and usually on a cursory look, if it's a notable pub, the results show up in a knowledge graph. Anyway, I refute that claim now as it appears it is notable, which is, as I mentioned already, besides the point, cause the source is an opinioned commentary piece on conspiracies related to Corona, which mentions the subject along with others. There is no in-depth coverage of the subject in this article. It's not about him. Tame ( talk) 04:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Heiko Schrang is one of the most important German conspiracy actors. Questioning the sources is silly and only distracting. All major German media reported about him over the course of time. Keep -- Norbert Eb ( talk) 19:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply
All major German media reported about him- you're welcome to list some here which aren't passing mentions, but in-depth coverage. Tame ( talk) 20:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As written I don't think that notability is there. If there were a page for "Querdenker Movement" then the contents of this article might be rewritten as a few sentences on such a page. Gusfriend ( talk) 12:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Libertarian utopia

Libertarian utopia (  | 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 nearly entirely to be original research. It doesn't seem like any of the sources used even mention the phrase "libertarian utopia", and it seems to be mainly focusing on some fringe right-libertarian interpretations. BeŻet ( talk) 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree that this is original research. Also, the side-bar is "Libertarianism in America" series but the article makes use of non-US sources. So the author of this article hasn't clearly established their topic. Lamona ( talk) 15:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Exohood

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

Fails WP:GNG. On top fails WP:NORG and WP:PRODUCT. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm normally one to advocate keeping articles when possible, but this one clearly does not yet meet notability guidelines. Looked them up on google to be sure, and only external sources I could find consisted merely of brief mentions in larger lists. Yitz ( talk) 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The detailed argument that this fails NCORP has only been challenged by poor arguments based on assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ecom Express

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are WP:ROUTINE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I understand Independent means that the coverage is intellectually independent and from reliable sources, I have stated all of that in the comment I believe the article needs to stay on Wikipedia, If you request any edits on the page I would be happy to do the same. -- Zubin1 ( talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are many in-depth citations on this one, such as [1], [2] and [3] so it meets notability guidelines. Zeddedm ( talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
  • Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria.
This from Business Today examines "How Warehousing is Changing" and as part of this long detailed article, mentions a couple of warehousing companies including the topic company. It describes one of the new warehouses of the topic company but the article does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
This from Economic Times is a commentary on reported annual accounts noting the company posted a 37% growth in revenue. No other details, no in-depth information, no "Independent Content", relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
In summary, not a single reference meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are at least 2 sources (Forbes and Economic Times) that are significantly about the company. Yes, some sources are probably "based on" press releases - a good deal of what we read in any newspaper is "based on" press releases, as that is how journalists get started. But I see no proof that press releases were involved here, nor that they were used verbatim. As for the award, I don't think that anyone is claiming that the award itself is significant - however, there are two articles about the company's commitment to employing women. Those are articles about the company, even if they are brief. Lamona ( talk) 15:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Nobody said anything about press releases being used "verbatim" and that isn't the test - you've already admitted that the articles are "based on" PR, that's enough to fail ORGIND unless the journalist adds their own stuff too. We need original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to any paragraph/sentence in those articles (please link the articles as there are multiples from each source) so the rest of us can see what you mean. Thanks. HighKing ++ 12:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keepstrike duplicate !vote Here are a few more Independent articles showcasing independent research by the writer that pass WP:ORGIND
The logistics of logistics: From manufacturer to consumer [4] the article focuses on an in-depth view of the writer written independently about ecom express warehouses.
Is Ecom Express India’s Next Logistics Tech Unicorn In The Making? In this article, the writer has done detailed research on the growth of the company. [5]
The company has also won many prestigious awards such as The Last Mile Partner of the Year award in 2018 by Global Logistics Excellence Awards [6]
It has also been featured in The LIMCA Book Of Records 2018 for 'Fastest Setting Up Of Delivery Centers By A Logistics Company In India' · Zubin1 ( talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Please see WP:SIRS. Each reference must meet all the criteria.
  • This is an article where approx half is about an Ecom warehouse where the journalist observes and describes what happens in that warehouse with a quote from the senior manager. It has zero in-depth information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Forbes India- you the writer has done detailed research on the growth of the company - sure, that's another way of saying that the journalist interviewed one of the co-founders I suppose. It is a "puff profile" and contains zero "Independent Content". Please point out any part of that article which contains original and independent opinion/analysis/etc that didn't come from the company or the interview. Fails ORGIND
  • None of those awards are "prestigious" for the purposes of establishing notability. A "partner of the year" award is severely limited as to the potential candidates for example. Similarly, the "Fastest Setting Up" award is not regarded as prestigious. There's an argument that every award bestows some prestige on the winner but for the purposes of notability these don't establish notability. See "examples of trivial coverage" in NCORP.
  • Mild delete A lot about funding but not much about their operations, agreements with companies, etc. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. After reading all the references so far, I believe it passes WP:SIRS as the references provided have significant coverage [7]. Within this reference, the author provides an in-depth coverage about his personal experience stating multiple facts sourced from a visit to the Organization under question. The article seems to be completely independent and it is particularly relevant to note that [Hindustan Times] is one of the most reliable newspapers within the country.
  • The other article by Forbes India [8] that has been referenced herewith, talks about the scale of the company within the Indian market. This article again seems completely independent. A thorough mention of the company within Forbes India also proves enough notability for this to not be questioned at this particular time.
  • The company's initiatives towards Women Empowerment in India [9] is also particularly significant and worthy of mention within an online global encyclopedia as the country makes strides to bring more women into the workforce and empower them on a financial basis within a country where inequality in the workforce is not unheard of. In India, women account only for 19% of the total workforce [10]. Wikiwhywhatnow ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Closing admin should take note of the number of !votes from newly awakened dormant accounts and/or brand new accounts. HighKing ++ 22:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dawood Pervez

Dawood Pervez (  | 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 demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Father is notable, but see WP:NOTINHERITED. Edwardx ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per GoldMiner24. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

ESA Automation

ESA Automation (  | 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 evidence of notability, unreferenced since 2016. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No citations, no evidence of notability. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Krakover Jose

Krakover Jose (  | 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)

Very limited notability (a few reports of when his family donated a plaque to a museum) and rather strong but unsupported claims in this biography (one of the first European pioneers in Argentine photography? No, decades later than e.g. Alexander Witcomb, and flashing with magnesium had been known even longer). Not one source in Google Books even mentions him as far as I can tell (e.g. the book "Photography in Argentina" [11] doesn't mention him, even though it has attention for the actual pioneers like Panunzi and Witcomb. If enough sources are found to keep this, it needs a complete rewrite to make it neutral and factual: as it stands, it seems to fail WP:GNG to me. Fram ( talk) 11:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I could not find any coverage that would meet the GNG either. While I recognize that there may be offline sources (e.g. 20th-century Argentine newspapers) that I don't have access to, the lack of coverage in Google Books (as noted by the nominator) makes it seem unlikely to me that any further coverage will be forthcoming. I suspect that the article has inflated this photographer's significance beyond what is warranted by the sources, although I'm certainly glad to reconsider if additional coverage can be identified. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt as ahistorical nonsense. Photography was a profession in Argentina and everywhere else for 100 years before this person allegedly lived. Sources do not back up the extravagant claims and are not reliable. Bearian ( talk) 16:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Sirajul Huda English Medium High School, Manjeshwar

Sirajul Huda English Medium High School, Manjeshwar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for years. Can't find any in-depth coverage, fails WP:GNG Onel5969 TT me 11:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jami ul Kamil

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

I don't see much available sources on the notability of this work, albeit its author has been very well appreciated for it. The creator of this article has copied several references and content from Ziya-ur-Rahman Azmi (and no attribution in the article history). This is possibly TOOSOON for this book and I suggest an ATD i.e. redirect to its author's article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment It does not make sense that the author which is famous for certain book should be there in Wikipedia but the book itself should be deleted. As the article is under construction. So the points above mentioned will be fixed in coming few days. Hasan.2526272829 (talk) 2:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I searched in Arabic for the full title "الجامع الكامل في الحديث الصحيح الشامل" and turned up a lot of user-generated content (especially download links...) but no RS. The wiki article itself implies one RS through a citation to "Bhatti 2012, p. 75" but the actual book by Bhatti being cited is not listed anywhere so I can't check it. The other independent source is a bio of Azmi (this book's editor/author), by a different Azmi, which has five sentences on this book. That source does call this book "the most important" of Azmi's many books but overall is a little marginal as a source, I think. It seems possible that this book as received the two reviews necessary for WP:NBOOK but I don't think the "slam dunk" sourcing has yet been demonstrated. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Daivajna surnames and Gotras

Daivajna surnames and Gotras (  | 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 are found. I propose for deletion of this. I have done the research and found nothing. MRRaja001 ( talk) 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The article makes several unsourced claims, some of which I know to be inaccurate. Appears to be original research and opinion of the article creator. The subject not notable for own article. Fails WP:GNG. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Lack of citations / references. One alternative might be to combine with Shett to create a combined naming related page. Gusfriend ( talk) 00:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 14:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

New Year (1989 film)

New Year (1989 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, can't find any. Also, Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - A notable film of late 80's. Was in the news as the unofficial remake of Dial M for Murder. As a pre internet era film, there aren't much references to prove the notability. Rajeshbieee ( talk) 06:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw: Impressive work Rajesh. However, Tintin's rationale is unfounded as simply having an IMDB entry and availability on YouTube are not enough. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Leah McCourt

  • Nominator withdrew as subject just (an hour ago) fought her third fight in top tier promotion. Cassiopeia talk 00:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply


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

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (Bellator was top tier from 2009 to 2015 and atop tier from 2022 (men)) onward. Subject also fail GNG as fight record info is merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Wide range of sources provided and the subject passes General Notablitity and does not need to be measured against any specific MMA fighter notability criteria. Sparkle1 ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2022 (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 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 12:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Daivajna temples and other affiliated temples

List of Daivajna temples and other affiliated temples (  | 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 useless article. No citations and nothing. MRRaja001 ( talk) 10:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable list. Appears to be have been created in a series of articles to promote Daivajna sub caste. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Al-Qahtani (footballer, born March 2002)

Mohammed Al-Qahtani (footballer, born March 2002) (  | 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)

According to Soccerway, he has yet to make his pro debut (doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY). Also doesn't pass WP:GNG, as there isn't significant coverage of the subject. Nehme 1499 08:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Evryware

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

Unsourced since creation in 2007. No significant coverage on google, newspapers.com, etc. Fails WP:CORP Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree, one of those junk articles from early wiki days with no sourcing. I can't find notable sources either. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is this source [12] that was on the talk page(thanks JimmyBlackwing) but an article can't exist with one source. Timur9008 ( talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I am checking out other companies in field of game industry. It seems for this type of companies, their notable products, bring them notability. Also I have added two other sources please check it out. Brayan ocaner ( talk) 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep A developer of several notable games (well more than 2-3) would be reasoanble to have a page to index their games (in the same vein as NCREATIVE) but ideally this should pass NCORP too. -- Masem ( t) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would advise against using the "notable games" argument right now. In order for a company to be notable, there has to be significant discussion among reliable and independent sources about the company itself, not just the games. It is possible that if a game company has several notable games, then the company could be notable. However, in order for that argument to be valid, there needs to be some insight from the sources into the company itself or their involvement in the development of their games. Otherwise, all the "notable games" argument would prove is that the games themselves are notable, not the company.
Looking into Evryware, the only four sources that I have found that talk about the company itself is the interview with Games Domain, a review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies from The One For Amiga Games, another review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies by Pelit, and a retrospective review of The Ancient Art of War by ParcelaDigital. The first source is the only source found by JimmyBlackwing used in the talk page. It is a reliable and significant source. However, it is not independent from Evryware and is instead a primary source thanks to it being an interview. The second source is an obscure print magazine that briefly mentions Evrywhere as an unknown company. The third source is from a Finnish magazine that is considered reliable, but does not significantly mention Evryware beyond mentioning they have developed other lesser-known games. And the fourth source, while it does provide insight into the company, has unknown reliability since it is obscure. Not even the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on ParcelaDigital. The latter two sources were used in the article on Evryware by the way.
It's worth pointing out that the articles on the games themselves don't have much information about the development process behind the games themselves and are only notable because they have been reviewed by gaming magazines. Admittedly, my source search was cursory. But unless other Wikipedians have additional sources that can prove that Evryware is notable beyond the fact they have created notable games, I am going to vote for deletion. WP:Notability is not inherited. Lazman321 ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Lazman321's analysis above is spot on. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 12:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not enough news coverage. Chelokabob ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mahabharat 2

Mahabharat 2 (  | 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)

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:NFILM. All references and actors cited are for the 2013 film. There are no supporting references for this unknown 2021 remake/sequel. The actors are noted in the article as being part of the cast of the original 2013 film. The production company, and director/producer are not notable. Singularity42 ( talk) 20:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: WP:HOAX; there is zero evidence of this project's existence in a WP:BEFORE search. All sources refer to the 2013 film. WP:G3 may be applied, imv -- Ab207 ( talk) 07:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom, there is no indication of this film, WP:HOAX. All the references shouting about Mahabharat (2013 film). DMySon ( talk) 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFILM as all references many of them even after being reliable are of 9 years old film about which this article is claimed to be sequel. Whole plot and cast is exactly same as 2013 film Mahabharat like Vidya Balan in the portrayal of Draupadi, Amitabh Bachchan as Bhishm Pitamah, Shatrughan Sinha as Krishn Ji, Deepti Naval as Kunti, Anupam Kher as Shakuni, Anil Kapoor as Karn, Ajay Devgan as Arjun, Jackie Shroff as Duryodhan, Vrajesh Heerji as Dushasan, Manoj Bajpeyee as Yudhishthir and Sunny Deol as Bhim. Moreover the article has lot of spelling mistakes. Pri2000 ( talk) 03:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom, there is no such film fails WP:NFILM. Social-Informers ( talk) 12:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete - not sure if it's a hoax, but does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Even the IMDb (external) link has no useful information and may be part of a hoax. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — DaxServer ( t · c) 08:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dipak Adhikari

Dipak Adhikari (  | 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:BLP of a political figure, whose only stated claim of notability is as vice-president of a student organization. This is not an "inherently" notable role per WP:NPOL, but is one where people get articles only if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here just tangentially verify the existence of the organization without mentioning Dipak Adhikari or his role at all, and the third just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in an article where he's in no way the subject. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced profoundly better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That article move definitely wasn't appropriate, so I've reverted it — but the article itself isn't properly sourced as notable either, so I've also initiated an AFD discussion on it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Adhikari. Bearcat ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. What is even going on here? (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Klassi Ghalina & The History of the World

Klassi Ghalina & The History of the World (  | 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)

Cites IMDB for 3/4ths of references. Issues of notability. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have cleaned up the article somewhat. Dunutubble ( talk) 16:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Doubt that's enough to elevate the article from the sorry state it's in. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 18:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hi. I appreciate your feedback. I created the article. I'm new to Wikipedia and I want to keep learning. I added several other references from different websites now cause you're right, originally there were many from IMDB. Do you think these references will do? Cause it would really be a pity if the article gets deleted cause Klassi Ghalina is very popular in Malta. I have a question please, can you include youtube links in references? Cause each episode has over 200K, 300K and even 400K sometimes which is truly a lot, considering the fact that Malta has a population of around half a million. Thanks for your feedback.
Comment: The article contains several references from many different sources now so the issue of notability has been addressed. There are references from nine sources. Tbwqbc1 ( talk) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I added more content and references from several different sources which are reliable, like Gwida, which "has been the best-selling magazine in Malta for over 50 years" [1] Tbwqbc1 ( talk) 09:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Tbwqbc1 (
talk • 
contribs) 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
reply

References

  1. ^ https://contenthouse.com.mt/en/brands/gwida

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Double votes, but nothing policy based as of yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: This article should not be deleted cause it obeys Wikipedia's notability requirements for films. In accordance with WP:NOTFILM, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". This article was originally nominated for deletion cause most of the references were from IMDB but now the references from IMDB have been removed and there are several references from independent sources which are reliable like Gwida, which "has been the best-selling magazine in Malta for over 50 years" Tbwqbc1 ( talk) 10:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Tbwqbc1, I've struck two of your "keep" !votes above; you are free to add additional comments, but please do not use bolded votes more than once per discussion to avoid confusion. Thanks! -- Blablubbs ( talk) 19:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: per above Starship SN20 talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: The series Klassi Ghalina is very popular in Malta and the movies which emerged from the series are the cherries on the cake. On the youtube channel KlassiGhalinaFans, each episode has got thousands of views. For example, Klassi Ghalina Season 2 Episode 7 has 414,000 views when the population of Malta is around half a million. Klassi Ghalina Season 3 Episode 3 has 456,000 views. Klassi Ghalina Season 2 Episode 4 has 409,000 views, etc... so the show is extremely popular. It would really be a pity if it gets deleted, particularly considering the fact that the user who nominated this article for deletion did so cause he said "Cites IMDB for 3/4ths of references. Issues of notability." Now the issue has clearly been addressed as there are no references from IMDB (it is not even a good source anyway with regards to notability, in fact these references were deleted) and now there are references from several different sources which evidently confirm the article's notability. When the user nominated this article for deletion, I sent a message on his talk page, and he agreed that the article was improved a good deal so it's a pity that he simply nominated the article for deletion and no longer commented on it, particularly considering the fact that the reason he submitted the nomination is no longer valid. Thanks. Tbwqbc1 ( talk) 07:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Inclusionary criteria #3 of WP:NFOE may apply here because Malta is small film market. However, the film in question should be notable for "something more than merely having been produced." The article at present does not assert this, and I can't see how existing references meet the notability criteria. Leaning to weak delete as I haven't other searched sources myself. -- Ab207 ( talk) 07:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: The article definitely meets the inclusionary criteria #3 of WP:NFOE cause Malta is surely a small film market and there are several references from different sources which sustain the show's notability.
@ Tbwqbc1:Striking additional "keep" !vote. I'd recommend reading the linked explanatory guideline on how to participate in AfD discussions before commenting further. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Torn between this and a no consensus close. Dubious an additional week is going to help but willing to try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

- Keep Sufficient referencing has been added. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 16:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Klassi Ghalina The sources since added do not, unfortunately, demonstrate notability under WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The references in reliable sources do little more than confirm WP:ITEXISTS. !Voting "Merge" to a as-yet-to-be-created article about the series in the hope that the article creator is able to find sourcing for the series as a whole as an WP:ATD. In the alternative, Userify so that such an article can be created in the article creator's sandbox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

History of Oxford

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) Banks Irk ( talk) 15:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply


History of Oxford (  | 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 stub is far less detailed less complete and less-well sourced than is the far more fulsome main Oxford#History article. Any information or sources in this article not currently in the main article could easily be merged. I propose that this article be merged and redirected into that article. 17:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Banks Irk ( talk)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the message Banks Ire. Personally, I'd assume that the history of one of the most famous towns in western Europe would be pretty close to automatic notability (the Victoria County History's History of Oxford currently comes in at eighteen volumes alone  :) Clearly the problem is not a lack of sourcing on the subject, but a lack of willingness to expand this article to a degree concomitant with its significance. Perhaps most Wikipedians are a bunch of Cambridge pinkos?!  ;) I might tentatively suggest merging some of the main article into this one. but I admit that's not the question being asked. Cheers, SN54129 18:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge - I can't see that deletion would be appropriate here. Banks Irk, I recommend you either start a merge proposal ( WP:MERGEPROP) or just do the merge yourself and see if anyone objects. Suriname0 ( talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • … or take one of the many sources in hand and write more of the history. It won't be the longest "a couple of days" in Wikipedia's history for an article to get expanded. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, the summer of 2007. I remember it well. Can't *quite* remember why I never came back to work on the article, though! I think given this has been more or less gathering dust since then, probably best to just redirect to the main article and leave the redirect in place in case anyone wants to try breaking it out again in future. Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and repurpose -- The criticism that Oxford#History is fuller is entirely valid. Yet, this article is fulfilling a useful but different purpose: History of Oxford related articles and bibliography. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I could definitely support the suggestion above that, instead of merging this article into the Oxford#History subsection, merge that subsection into this article. That was an option that I considered proposing when I first posted this. In fact, one option might literally involve switching the content of the two articles. Use this material in the main Oxford article, and take the material from that article and move it here. That way there would be relatively short content in the main article with a link to this one, and then this one would have a much more complete discussion of the subject matter as the main "history" article. Thoughts? Banks Irk ( talk) 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Just to see what that looked like, I swapped the material around (potential new Oxford#History is [14], and conversely, new History of Oxford here [15]). obviously a fair bit of tidying, etc, would need to be done, but it gives an indication of the relative size of the "new" pages and the amount of material involved. SN54129 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • That works for me. It looks like a good solution. Banks Irk ( talk) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but move information as appropriate. -- 217.165.244.152 ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep AKA do the switch as per SN54129's edits, with the relevant reference from the Oxford article. Lamona ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Certainly this is a significant enough topic to merit having its own page. I would agree that moving information from the History section of Oxford is the way to go and then that could be cut back (as it is I would say that it takes up too much of the Oxford article so this would be good for both articles). Dunarc ( talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Tame ( talk) 18:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Andras Miyagi

Andras Miyagi (  | 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. Sources are mostly stats. Lacks in depth, significant coverage. Tame ( talk) 17:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of major music film awards apart from Academy Award

List of major music film awards apart from Academy Award (  | 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 badly titled list that isn't what its name indicates: it isn't a list of awards, it's a list of individual composers organized on the arbitrary intersection of "has never been nominated for an Oscar" with "has been nominated for or won other film music awards besides the Oscar". This is not a notable intersection in its own right, and is effectively unmaintainable as a lot of people in that boat have not been listed here ( Canadian Screen Award for Best Original Score alone is teeming with examples), and even for people who are included here there's no guarantee that a person will be removed from this list if and when they do pull off an Oscar nomination later on. (Update: I ran a list comparison in AWB, and there are seven people in this list who did receive Oscar nominations, mostly after this list was created but also including one person who had already been a nominee and was thus an outright error on the creator's part.)
And for added bonus, the only sources cited here are one composer's biographical sketch on his own self-published website, and several film awards' own self-published databases of past winners and nominees -- there's no indication that these people get collectively analyzed as a group on a "composers who have won other awards but not this one" basis in any reliable sources, which is what would be required to justify a list like this.
This simply is not an encyclopedically noteworthy intersection of characteristics, and even if it were keepable it would still have to be moved to a different title because the existing title is not accurate. Bearcat ( talk) 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete So what? I'm very confused, should we have a list of actors good enough to be nominated for an Emmy or Golden Globe but not an Oscar? And directors and writers? Reywas92 Talk 16:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I agree this is badly titled and just a list of composers not been nominated for Oscar. Additionally it fails WP:GNG as even list article should contain reliable sources and it lacks reliable sources. Pri2000 ( talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that any reliable sources have ever written about this intersection, that is, composers who have been nominated for Golden Globes, BAFTA Awards, Grammy Awards, Emmy Awards, or International Film Music Critics Association without being nominated for an Oscar. Not to mention that the premise of the list seems to be that it's not good enough for a composer to win an Oscar if the award was in a song category rather than a score category. I look at this list and I see several Oscar winners in the Best Song category, such as T-Bone Burnett, Bob Dylan, Johnny Mandel, Tim Rice, Richard Rodgers, and Carly Simon. The Academy's music branch didn't snub them. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Aastha Bhajan TV

Aastha Bhajan TV (  | 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 fails Wikipedia 's General notability guidelines. (GNG) No significant coverage is present anywhere. The article is not notable. GoldenHayato ( talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Self-draftified. Not yet fit for mainspace. I will work on it in the future. (non-admin closure) Tame ( talk) 12:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pamela Whissel

Pamela Whissel (  | 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)

Sources are inadequate for establishing notabilty TheLongTone ( talk) 15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Subject is a notable magazine editor and author. Sources Exist. Don't judge based on the article. Tame ( talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Atheism, and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete There is no coverage at all. The references in the articles, one confirms she is an editor on Google books, one on muck rack confirms she is an editor and is news blog which is non-rs likely. The first reference is a profile, likely written by herself and the last one is not about her. scope_creep Talk 08:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Scope creep, the last one isn't about her, but is used to back up the claim that she is the Acting Communications Director of American Atheists. Tame ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Fair enough but that doesn't prove notability per WP:BIO. There is no secondary coverage, barely any primary coverage on this women, at all. Nothing comes up that not related to her position. She is completly non-notable in the most basic sense. scope_creep Talk 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep, I'm a regular reader of the American Atheists Magazine and many printed others, if you go to Scribd and visit the American Atheist Magazines, you'll see articles about her and editor's letters in every issues from 2013. Although it's primary source. And she is often talked about in the Skeptic and New Humanist magazine. She lacks coverage online, but there are some considerable amount in printed sources. Tame ( talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Tame: The form is generally to put up at three secondary sources per WP:THREE that shows she is notable, so they can be examined by those who are taking part in the discussion. scope_creep Talk 12:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Sydney Smith (photographer)

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

This seems to be a purely local artist, of local interest. BD2412 T 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is a local artist, but his name is listed in The Australian Dictionary of Biography https://adb.anu.edu.au/about-us/ and his works are held in museum collection
There are Sydney Smiths in the Australian Dictionary, but they are not this photographer. Chemical Engineer ( talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I've also tried a Getty ULAN search, nothing. If substantive sources can be found/added to the article, willing to reconsider. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this appears to be a non-notable Sydney Smith; there are some notable people of the same name (dab page), causing confounding signals. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The York Press article is an independent and sufficiently extensive article about him. The book listed as cites 1 & 2 here has around 80 of his photographs, which as a photographer is a comprehensive use of his work. Because he was a photographer, presentation of his photographic work should count. The collection of his works is held at the Beck Isle Museum, as it says in the WP article there. Lamona ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete While they may not be completely authoritative, the notability criteria at WPPhotography [16] show that the subject, with the sources presented, is not notable. Neither of the books cited seems to be dedicated solely/mainly to his work or has "received critical attention" and he does not appear in any of the databases listed. It could be debated whether the Beck Isle Museum is "prominent", and they do have a large collection of his work [17], but it still seems as if he only had local significance/coverage. If someone is able to visit the museum mentioned here and gather more information, I would certainly be willing to reconsider, but for the time being there seems to be only one (local) source to count towards notability. Toadspike ( talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Okay. Given the amount of SPA's and high amount of !votes, I'm going to BOLDly close this as a snow keep before it turns into a clusterfuck of a thing (as it's generally seen with social media phenomenons).

Generally speaking, consensus has been formed that the subject meets the general notability guideline—despite the very likely possibility that this may be fake—with the reliable sources cited in the article, and that the nomination was made too early without giving the article a chance to develop. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ghost of Kyiv


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

Not notable. Urban legend presented in article as actual person. Lightspecs ( talk) 13:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood ( talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Too soon- Just because something may be an urban legend (I don't see any evidence that he is one, anyways) doesn't warrant deletion. Urban legends or popular tales can also meet WP:Notability.This deletion proposal has been done far too early. Dunutubble ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not totally convinced that the Ghost is real, given that the existence of the person is described as unconfirmed. I'd like to wait and see if anything more comes out on the ghost, but absent continued coverage of the individual beyond the immediate future I'd lean towards deletion. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). WP:TOOSOON to see if there's will be enough lasting coverage beyond the routine news cycle to warrant a standalone article, but there seems to be enough coverage to warrant a mention in the article about the battle. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We don't know if it's true, we don't know what's going on. There is a lot of misinformation going on a lot of fake news, a lot of propaganda stories flying around (pun intended) on both sides and Wikipedia can't be an avenue for that. We must stick to facts that can be verifiable, especially when dealing with current events. Coltsfan ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Real or legend, the coverage satisfies GNG. See also Molly Pitcher, another notable war legend. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Reliably sourced, I agree that this was proposed too early. Ifnord ( talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it definitely has reliable sources. Even if it is an urban legend, it has enough coverage for an article. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is absolute implausible. Here are some thoughts from a military expert, Tom Cooper on his Facebook page. AlmeidaBarros ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Facebook is not a reliable source and I'm very curious why an account that has been inactive for close to a year would suddenly be used to comment on this AfD and the article talk page with the same point. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Facebook is not a reliable source. You could try citing a Peer reviewed academic source instead, and even then it wouldn't do anything to counter WP:GNG. Even if the story turns out to be fake we still have articles like Crucified Boy which are notable in their own right. Dunutubble ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022), as per Qwaiiplayer. Iamthedutchdude ( talk) 14:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment This account has only six edits, all today, all but one on Ukraine conflict-related AfDs and the remaining one on the associated article page. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for now) per Smarty. Proposed too early. SWinxy ( talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It appears that this AfD has gotten a lot of traction, and a couple !votes are from new accounts or those with few edits. SWinxy ( talk) 20:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As Smarty stated above, the article certainly meets the GNG, and it seems that there are further sources that have yet to be used in the article. Whether the subject is real or not, or an urban legend, or even propaganda, is irrelevant to the fact that it is receiving sufficient coverage. Could be re-evaluated for lasting impact in the future, but it is too soon to judge that. Toadspike ( talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if the ghost of kyiv turns out to not actually exist, it is a big urban legend that is being parroted by multiple news organizations. It can be updated to show it is an urban legend if we need to. UkraineNumbaOne ( talk) 15:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment this account only has one edit, to this page. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sourcing is borderline, Facebook and two sports newspapers although National News seems reliable, and demonstrates international attention. It doesn't matter at all if the pilot exists: we also write about notable hoaxes and urban legends. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON The existence of this pilot and their achievements lacks sourcing. If this person is identified and their achievements confirmed, an article with their proper name may be in order, but for now, I'd be for deletion or redirect. U-dble ( talk) 15:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While more emphasis should be placed on the fact this is unconfirmed it is notable and their are other pages on legends and myths. PaienPaien ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Qwaiiplayer: mostly, WP:TOOSOON. Furthermore, it smells of typical wartime propaganda. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Will we have to delete our article on the Crucified Boy then? That was a piece of wartime propaganda during the very same war. Dunutubble ( talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as of starter, have the 6 downings really happened? Can they be verified? P1221 ( talk) 16:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is way too soon to delete this page. Even if it is unconfirmed, it is notable enough to feature on multiple news sites. It can be updated if it turns out to be an urban legend TheHaloVeteran2 ( talk) 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this article is about the persistent belief in a pilot, not the pilot. If it's confirmed to be true or false that's relevant and should be noted in the article. Frobird ( talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not because it isn't real, as urban legends can be notable. But because it isn't notable. Most coverage is on one event, and most articles seem to be talking about social media users celebrating the alleged pilot. Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: it's highly likely more information about this is going to emerge in the very near future.
    I agree that its sourcing is something that needs improving, but considering that the invasion of Ukraine happened this week, I would hold off on deletion, as things are developing quickly.
    If nothing else comes out about this, then I'd support merging it into Kyiv Offensive (2022), as it will likely roll nicely into the description of how events unfolded and who took what actions. However, I'd argue that it's too soon to make that call. The offensive started this week. We should give it at least a little more time to see what happens; I would be very surprised if no major news outlets picked up on this story.-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Probably created WP:TOOSOON but similarly deleting "too soon" per WP:RAPID isn't the best remedy. {{ Current}} is sufficient while content evolves and preserves work that may turn out to be useful. Can always renominate for deletion if/when decision is clearer. -- N8 16:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm.

    There is zero evidence the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists with Ukrainian authorities not confirming their existence.

    — van Brugen, Isabel (2022-02-25). "Who is the Ghost of Kyiv? Ukraine MiG-29 Fighter Pilot Becomes the Stuff of Legend". Newsweek.

    There’s only one catch: there probably is no “Ghost of Kyiv” and this internet legend is probably not true.

    The legend of the “Ghost of Kyiv” is almost certainly an example of bizarre distortions and manipulations of fact or near-fact that are amplified during the chaos of war, especially a new war during the opening hours.

    — Demeerly, Tom (2022-02-25). "The 'Ghost of Kyiv', The Missing Mega-Plane, A Rogue Air India flight and a Samurai: Welcome to the Fog of War". The Aviationist.

    In this case, absolutely nothing is known about this ‘Ghost of Kyiv’.

    Overall, sorry to spoil the celebrations: insisting on evidence and facts is often making me a ‘party crusher’.[…]

    I’m simply explaining why all the nonsense circulated about the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ around the social media is just nonsense.

    — Cooper, Tom (2022-02-25). "Ukrainian MiG-29 pilot credited for having shot down 6 Russian jets (2x Su-35s, 1x Su-27, 1x MiG-29M, and 2x Su-25s) is just an Urban Legend". AviationGeekClub.

    It would seem that all of the "proposed too early" people are ignoring that the burden rests upon them to show that this is a verifiably real thing with good sources to back it up. "Created too early", based upon reports with all of the usual journalistic get-out wording ("if", "appears", "rumoured", "would be", and so on), is much closer to the mark. We aren't in the business of regurgitating Internet gossip and hearsay. We're here to produce a factual encyclopaedia.

    Uncle G ( talk) 17:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

    The argument here is notability, not how true the event is. Articles about fake news exist on Wikipedia.

    And as for Tim Cooper, I respect his military expertise but we need more than one expert to confirm so. The Aviationist is a blog and self-published source, not an authority on the subject. And for the first source given, see WP:NEWSWEEK for a general indication on that site's reliability.

    The vast majority of "proposed too early" people - including me - are arguing not that it's nessecarily true, but instead that it's notable. Legends about Flying aces do form articles here, as we can see at Category:Flying aces for a general overview. Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 17:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

    The burden still rests upon you to show that there actually, verifiably, exists such a flying ace; and here you are arguing that the burden is on the likes of these people to confirm that an Internet rumour is false. The burden is on Wikipedia editors like you to show, with good sources, that your claimed thing exists, in the face of people like this who make the deletion argument for us, saying that it is unverifiable, that there's nothing to say that it exists, and "nothing is known about it". Verifiability and no original research are basic content policy, and it is a sad state of affairs when people outwith Wikipedia do a better job of challenging journalism filled with cop-outs, and actually applying our policy, than Wikipedia editors do. Uncle G ( talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Again, a Straw man fallacy. I have said that the article is sustained by its notability, and not that it's not real. This is not a discussion about whether or not something exists; in fact, the nominator's rationale was about WP:GNG. Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I've seen this pilot mentioned everywhere, people are looking to know more. keeping the link on site but having it merged into the offensive or the invasion would allow people searching for this name to look into, not just this specific supposed pilot, but also the wider event. Editoronthewiki ( talk) 17:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If more info comes out I would change my vote to say the pilot deserves their own page, but for the moment it can just be a redirect. this pilot is becoming a moral boost, so we need to document it, but as of right now they may not need their own article Editoronthewiki ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep GoK is trend now in social media. but, it is just one day. wait more for deletion or keep. dont rush ---- modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether the pilot or anything about them is real or not is immaterial, we have an article on Davy Jones' Locker. The article as I read it now is a well-sourced article that makes it clear the Ghost of Kyiv is basically an urban legend being used for morale. It may have some RECENTISM, but we can cite the other TOO SOON to counter that (AfD'd almost immediately, without allowing article to develop). As it is, article does not go against any policy and there is no reason to delete. Suggest close. Kingsif ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). Then have Ghost of Kyiv redirect to the relevant section for people searching for GoK on Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 ( Cdjp1) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This can either be deleted because it is likely propaganda, or it can be kept and described as a Ukrainian attempt to raise morale for its people. The point is the "Ghost of Kiev" is implausible, and is most likely an invention of the Ukrainian government (they were posting DCS video game footage as proof of the shootdowns). 128.6.37.43 ( talk) 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's unlikely the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists. But it's significant impact and media coverage warrants notability. Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed, that was my point. 128.6.37.43 ( talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Viral in social media. It is way too soon to delete this page. -- JOestby ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's too soon to make conclusions right now. It's described as "unconfirmed" by various sources so it's best to wait for more information to come out before potential deletion. -- DJTechYT ( talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think we should watch after the war how this urban legend is being viewed by the population in the world. I think there's a decent chance that it can be actually confirmed. Alone the urban legend is enough to mention it somewhere, I suppose -- DefendingFree ( talk) 18:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but restructure to further empathize that this is unconfirmed and that this could be use as a Ukrainian morale booster. This has received articles from reliable sources and has been talked about everywhere. Such a notable thing should not be deleted, even if it is a hoax- and if it turns out to be a hoax, restructure the article to state that it is a hoax. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As others have said, it is too soon to delete this article given its presence in news coverage around the world. Sources disagree on whether this is real or a hoax, and it seems opinions are very much in flux as a whole. I think the article definitely needs expansion, with emphasis placed on the pilot's unconfirmed presence during the offensive.-- BrayLockBoy ( talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if he doesn't exist, this figure is becoming something of a folk hero to many Ukrainians and is worth at least a mention somewhere. I have also seen at least one mainstream news article mention this ( https://nypost.com/2022/02/25/who-is-the-ghost-of-kyiv-story-of-ukrainian-ace-pilot-goes-viral/) Hypsiosthews ( talk) 19:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Too soon, we should wait for more information. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge Even if they are an urban legend, their existence has gained so much traction on social media they deserve a mention somewhere, just maybe not in their own article in the case they aren't real. Jsc122 ( talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not confirmed by any major or minor source. This could also be seen as advertising and propaganda for the ukrainians, thus violating wp:NPOV. It was assembled in less then 2 days thus making it of questionable quality. It may be worth a mention but not here, Wikipedia is not a forum of discussion for such unconfirmed myths. Toast (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    How is it relevant that it has only existed for two days? If you think the article isn't notable or it's too soon then that's something you should argue for but there's no minimum amount of time something has to exist for before it can be acknowledged on this site if it meets the normal criteria. Frobird ( talk) 20:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and monitor, with a definitive AFD (if still necessary) once it is determined whether the events are real or not. That will probably affect its future notability. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 20:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). To be an actual "urban leganed" something has to have existed for more than a month. Something that alledgedly happened this month is an unverified claim and not something that merits an article. If it gets verrfiied, it may merit an article, if it persists for multiple months to be highly discussed in reliable sources, we can have this article. It is too soon to have it now. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Neutral comment: To be an actual "urban leganed" something has to have existed for more than a month. is patently untrue with social media today, and does sound very arbitrary anyway. Kingsif ( talk) 20:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being an urban legend does not imply non-notability, otherwise what are we to do with our List of urban legends, never mind Santa Claus. Notability here is more closely related to verifiable coverage of the legend in the media, and a fair recognition of the Legend itself, not an attempt to prove or disprove the "truth" of the matter behind the legend. Now if the article presents the urban legend as a "real person", that is obviously problematic, but that can and should be (and may be already) fixed with proper editing to clarify the matter. Whether or not there is or was an actual "lone wolf" Ukrainian pilot buzzing around "weapons free" and shooting down Russian warplanes at the start of the conflict is irrelevant. The notability is in the Legend itself, not the truth of it. Now if proper treatment of the Legend can be provided in the parent article, then a merger can be considered as a separate action. T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep definitively a notable topic that has received a lot of coverage in media, even if it may be fake. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per Toast CarlosYif ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This urban legend is definitely notable because a bunch of people are talking about it. Aknell4 ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - People are going to want information about this that is reliable and accessible. Regardless of the veracity of the rumours, the coverage seems to confer notability to the name and "legend" itself as a phenomenon - just make sure that whatever we source is reliable. BlackholeWA ( talk) 20:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I will also add in response to Toast that if an article for a notable topic is of questionable quality, the solution is to improve the page, not delete recent articles before the editing process can bring them up to an acceptable state. WP:PRESERVE. Maybe watch this space and monitor to see if the article *does* improve with better sourcing. BlackholeWA ( talk) 20:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly there is not going to be an outcome to this discussion other than Keep. In any case, this is a pretty clwar WP:GNG pass and an almost certain WP:10YT pass. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This legend deserves this. Even if this hero is unverified yet, still needs to be here because it's a symbol of resistance. ZeusAmmon1 ( talk) 21:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool, did you know? MaeseLeon ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, reasons that come down to "I like it" aren't generally counted, "strong" or not. Kingsif ( talk) 22:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there's enough coverage, and the article clearly describes it as an urban legend. "Verifiability, not Truth" is our standard, and I'd say that standard is met. Guettarda ( talk) 21:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I had come from Twitter to look this article up on Wikipedia with the intention of even starting it. There are massive sources to back this up. See, even if this is a myth, it should still be kept on Wikipedia to inform people that it is a myth. It's a relevant topic and it's existence in high demand. Danidamiobi ( talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not every war rumor gets its own article but in this case, we are a couple of days into a major war with a billion people watching and this is one of the most popular early stories during a journalism bottleneck. There is excess attention on this story and we have the WP:GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lack sourcing, unvirfied, perhaps propaganda. Yxuibs ( talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Tell me you haven't read the article without telling me you haven't read the article. Your comment lacks sourcing, is unverified, perhaps propaganda. Kingsif ( talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if it's not real urban legends can have a place on wikipedia. You wouldn't remove a page on Sasquatch because it's mythical. As long as the page posits it as unconfirmed there is no reason to remove it. Additionally this is a piece of history in some form. I think its a lovely addition to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8100:2EE0:845D:82C1:7DCF:3F89 ( talk) 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Phillip Kakuru

Phillip Kakuru (  | 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)

Paid for article [18]) where the three recent sources have all signs of being rehashed press releases / paid for "articles" as well, seeing that they all came within days of each other and all contained the same bizarre mistakes like "he moved to South Africa in early 2000s which had just gained independence" [19] vs. "during the early 2000s he moved to South Africa which had just gained independence" [20] vs. "the opportunities that existed in South Africa in 2000 after it had just attained its independence." [21]. Very few actually independent sources about him seem to exist [22]. Fram ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wyplay

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

No sources cited, google search indicates under-average telecom company. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 13:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vincent Harper

Vincent Harper (  | 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)

PROD contested by article creator - who, I note, has had a number of their footballer bios deleted or draftified. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league, never in the Football League - only in non-league National League which does not confer notability). Unlikely to be notable any time soon so draftifying not appropriate. Giant Snowman 12:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/heir-joe-bryan-lloyd-kelly-4505101 Yes Yes ~ Has a fact about his Kenyan roots that could be used to expand the article slightly but calling this WP:SIGCOV would be a huge stretch. ~ Partial
https://int.soccerway.com/players/-/529564/ Yes Yes No Stats ✘ No
https://www.westonsmareafc.co.uk/fixture_and_result/harrow-borough-v-weston-super-mare/ No He played for this club No No ✘ No
https://www.westonsmareafc.co.uk/fixture_and_result/yate-town-v-weston-super-mare/ No He played for this club No No ✘ No
https://www.westonsmareafc.co.uk/fixture_and_result/taunton-town-v-weston-super-mare-2/ No He played for this club No No ✘ No
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/19570973.eastleigh-fc-permanently-sign-ex-bristol-city-vince-harper/ Yes Yes No Painfully brief transfer announcement in regional tabloid ✘ No
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-bristol-city-full-back-5700960 Yes Yes No Brief trial announcement ✘ No
https://the72.co.uk/242429/player-recently-released-by-bristol-city-on-trial-with-cheltenham-town/ Yes Yes No Another brief trial announcement ✘ No
https://www.eastleighfc.com/new-signing-vincent-harper-joins-the-spitfires/ No He plays for this club No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Bradley Ash

Bradley Ash (  | 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)

PROD contested by article creator - who, I note, has had a number of their footballer bios deleted or draftified. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league, never in the Football League - only in non-league National League which does not confer notability). Unlikely to be notable any time soon so draftifying not appropriate. Giant Snowman 12:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I live near his current club and I didn't recognise the name. That obviously isn't the sole criteria of notability, but we would almost certainly never have articles on people who have only played at this level in any country that has won the World Cup other than in 1966, and we simply cannot have that level of imbalance and Anglospherism in what is supposed to be a global encyclopaedia. He is notable at a low level, but so are many other people who are not notable in the Wikipedia context. RobinCarmody ( talk) 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Caphadouk ( talk) 09:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, has actually only played at tier 5 and lower Josey Wales Parley 13:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per source analysis below Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL Zanoni ( talk) 19:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://uk.soccerway.com/players/bradley-ash/308799/ Yes Yes No Soccerway stats page ✘ No
https://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/news/2016/january/reds-swoop-for-striker-bradley-ash/ No He played for Barnsley FC, not independent No No Generic and brief transfer news ✘ No
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.com/latest-news/step-1/national-league/22944/bradley-ash-joins-boreham-wood-permanently-from-barnsley-fc/ Yes Yes ~ Most of the coverage is just a long quote from him and his manager rather than independent analysis ~ Partial
https://www.herefordtimes.com/sport/17802399.hereford-fc-sign-forward-brad-ash/ Yes Yes No Just brief stats and two quotes ✘ No
https://www.herefordtimes.com/sport/18512220.kieran-thomas-brad-ash-move-away-hereford-fc/ Yes Yes No Not addressed in detail ✘ No
https://uptheterras.co.uk/2021/06/15/welcome-bradley-ash/ No Weymouth's own site No No ✘ No
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/sport/19373818.brad-ash-signs-weymouth/ Yes Yes ~ Contains a little bit more than just basic stats but not enough to justify an entire article on Ash ~ Partial
https://www.skysports.com/football/player/161171/bradley-ash Yes Yes No Contains almost nothing ✘ No
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.com/players/b-ash/ Yes Yes No Basic stats ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Skilling You

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

Fails WP:NCORP creator bypassed AFC. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As per above, and appear to be promotional Zsohl (Talk) 13:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment has been speedy deleted multiple times under other titles. Theroadislong ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that I had deleted the now bypassed draft as WP:G11. Noting I have partial blocked creator for removing the AfD. template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Obviously promotional. An user contacted me on IRC asking me to help out with this article, but it is just not noteworthy. -- Bedivere ( talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt per the fact that this clearly isn't notable, has been recreated multiple times, and there seems to be some off site canvasing going on. Which I don't think should be encouraged. Nor should the article be recreated again and there's zero evidence that it will stay deleted without being salted. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Pouschine Cook Capital Management

Pouschine Cook Capital Management (  | 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)

Fairly reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources and appears to be written as a WP:PROMO. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 11:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Paraguay at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics

Paraguay at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article is notable since Paraguay only had one athlete play the World Championships in Athletics in 2011 and they didn't win anything that year. Also the article is only referenced to a single primary trivial source and I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of the topic when I did a WP:BEFORE. So the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, which is in order because all the criteria from the first limb of WP:SK obtain. Clearly there's scope to write something encyclopaedic in this space after all.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Capability–expectations gap

Capability–expectations gap (  | 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 is about a paper by respected Cambridge University professor Christopher J. Hill. This is that paper. The problems I have with this are firstly, that someone who types "Capability-expectations gap" into the search box isn't necessarily looking for an article about a 1993 paper about the now-defunct European Economic Community, and secondly, that we don't usually host articles about individual academic papers. Possibilities that I envisage include deleting it, selectively merging the content to European studies, selectively merging it to Christopher J. Hill, or doing both of the preceding things. What does the community think? — S Marshall  T/ C 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — S Marshall  T/ C 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — S Marshall  T/ C 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I think the fact that a professor at the University of Copenhagen devotes an entire book to the CEG indicates that the fourth option, expanding the article with other people's analyses of this concept, is what to do. Larsen discusses how this has been discussed by others. For a briefer explanation of (than Larsen's) and another independent source for the CEG model, see Hlouchová 2018, pp. 28–31. Iveta Hlouchová is now a political science researcher at the University of New York in Prague.
  • Uncle G ( talk) 11:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Hm. And when I did read Dr Hlouchová's source, I saw that she also cites Prof Dr Oldřich Bureš' United Nations Peacekeeping: Bridging the Capabilities-Expectations Gap, published in 2008, so I'm no longer in any doubt that scholars are writing about this in the 21st century. But what I also saw is that she calls the concept "essentially pre-theoretical" since he resorts to conceptualizing Europe's international capability rather than to theoretical explanations and predictions, and adds Inspired by Hill, the author of this monograph also refrains from the thorough theoretical framing of the research subject. I now wonder if this is a nebulous concept that has yet to be rigorously defined.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • The phrase "Welcome to the social sciences!" comes to mind. ☺ I dread someone recolouring that dangling hyperlink for "actorness". Larsen has a lot more rabbit holes to go down in terms of chasing other cited works. Hlouchová seemed like a solid source for at least an outline definition, and something simpler to begin with. And there are a fair amount of things like Niemann 2006, p. 113 around showing that it's something that other authors have applied. The problem is that, as ever, we have a decade-old cursory one-paragraph stub on a difficult subject. At least people didn't stuff it with random mentions in films and television shows, though. ☺
        • Niemann, Arne (2006). Explaining Decisions in the European Union. Cambridge University Press. ISBN  9780521864053.
      • Uncle G ( talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Paraguay at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics

Paraguay at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article is notable since Paraguay only had one athlete play the World Championships in Athletics in 2009 and they didn't win anything that year. Also the article is only referenced to a single primary trivial source and I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of the topic when I looked for it. So the subject of the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep as an ongoing event with a different scope than the cited "duplicate" article. Discussion about merging/renaming can be held on the talk page after the dust has cleared. (non-admin closure) ansh. 666 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Battle of Kyiv (2022)

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Kyiv (2022) (  | 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)

Duplicates the scope of Kyiv Offensive (2022). ―  Tartan357  Talk 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

An offensive is very much different than a battle. That is the reason, it isn't a "split", it is two completely different topics. Same reason Normandy landings and Operation Overlord are different articles; they are different topics. Elijahandskip ( talk) 09:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I can see the need for two articles in the future, but we are in the fog of war right now and have basically nothing to say about the "Battle of Kyiv"—just a single report that some Russian troops may have entered the city. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we need to wait. ―  Tartan357  Talk 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON (yes I know it's just an essay) with no prejudice against recreating this when there is proper, in-depth sourcing available. This is an ongoing current event that sources are not speaking about yet coherently or holistically. I would suggest this deleting is done speedily as I think it is slight irresponsible to keep this up given the current war in Ukraine and risk of misinformation spreading. At the very least this page should be protected ASAP. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 09:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    No prejudice from me against a speedy nomination if there is a proper criterion. ―  Tartan357  Talk 10:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Suggestion for Tartan357 & Vladimir.copic, since you both agree the topic could be split in the future and are basing the delete !votes on no "battle of Kyiv" yet, how about we draftify until the battle begins? Elijahandskip ( talk) 10:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That sounds like a great idea. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if that happens. ―  Tartan357  Talk 10:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
until the battle begins? What? We go off reliable sources - WP isn't a newsroom! I cannot even find any sources referring to this as "Battle of Kyiv". That said - I'm happy with anything that takes this off the main space ASAP. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 10:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Vladimir.copic: I missed that part—thanks for catching it. A split should only occur once the dust has settled and there is significant enough content to warrant two articles. ―  Tartan357  Talk 10:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah perusing through happenings on Twitter, it seems as if this was a bit hasty on my part. I just saw the articles that said fighting in Kyiv, but those probably aren't the most accurate. We're working with very limited info, so we're all doing the best we can. My mistake (I'm still like 3 for 5 tonight lol). Curbon7 ( talk) 10:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Can you move it back to draft space? I will withdraw this deletion nomination if you do. You moved it into mainspace, so you should be able to go ahead and move it back. It can be moved back when/if there is significant enough content in Kyiv Offensive (2022) for two articles after the dust has settled. ―  Tartan357  Talk 10:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Kyiv Offensive (2022), to avoid confusing readers. Vida0007 ( talk) 10:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now anyway. The offensive’s scope is mainly Kiev Oblast (rural), this is Kiev city (urban). Juxlos ( talk) 10:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per not WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. There isn't even anything confirmed about this yet to write an article with. Give it a few weeks or really months until there's some actual facts about what is going on. There's zero way anything reliable or fact based is coming out about it at this point though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The offensive to take Kyiv, spanning an entire oblast, is different from the battle for the city. Both will go down as very, very historically significant events. VR talk 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both Battle of Kyiv (2022) and Kyiv Offensive (2022). They are two different articles for two different things. This one is for the Battle of Kyiv, and although the article needs to be extended and improved, I think it would be a mistake to delete it at this time. Salvabl ( talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Can any of the keep voters give some kind of sourcing for this? At the moment this is just WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 12:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Vladimir.copic: you're right this is somewhat of a WP:CRYSTALBALL. But also WP:NOTBURO - if we delete this article now, we'll be recreating it in a few days, if not a few hours. Russian forces have already entered the city [23] and Ukrainian troops are stiffly resisting [24] (note these links might say something different in a few hours). WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply because these events are definitely of enduring notability. VR talk 12:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Recreation would be fine because presumably then sources describing something called the “battle of Kiev” exist. Currently no one calls this event this name. Needing an event to have actually happened and be described by reliable sources is not bureaucracy. Or should we just create a “battle of insert Ukrainian city” article for every city and fill in the blanks later? The real WP:NOTBURO travesty is that this AfD will linger on for a week allowing this OR to stay in mainspace rather than an admin deleting it outright. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 13:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Jeesh! Really? waiting less than 6 hours after the 1st AfD closed before opening a 2nd round has to set some kind of record. Note to Closer: Most of those who voted on the 1st proposal have not been informed that a 2nd was immediately opened, and even for the one I saw had been notified, this whole thing is so irregular they may not realize that they are being informed about a different discussion than the one they !voted on earlier in the day. Closer should take into account the !votes and rationales given in the other discussion. Agricolae ( talk) 12:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    The last AfD was withdrawn 30 minutes after it opened… It’s not as if it was a full discussion where consensus was reached. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 12:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Agricolae: The last AfD was for the article that now sits at Kyiv Offensive (2022), which I support keeping. That article was moved to that title, leaving a redirect, which was later turned into this article. So that "first nomination" actually has nothing to do with this article. ―  Tartan357  Talk 12:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both Kyiv Offensive (2022) and Battle of Kyiv (2022) which is a sub-battle of the overall offensive. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Kyiv Offensive (2022), as per Vida0007. If that article would be a long one, I would understand the arguments above, but that isn't the case (yet). Iamthedutchdude ( talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If we would keep this article, I think we should at least rename it to Battle of Kiev (2022), as the other battles of Kiev. Iamthedutchdude ( talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If the article is currently Kyiv, shouldn't the descriptive name follow the same spelling? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 14:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
In that case, the other articles should be renamed (which I would find OK as well). Iamthedutchdude ( talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
There are lots of cases where older names are used in some contexts, while more accurate names are used in a recent context. Hanover vs Hannover would be a good example. Guettarda ( talk) 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is indeed a battle within the city of Kyiv, and a military battle that is waged in the capital of a sovereign state is extremely likely to pass WP:NEVENT. This isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL if there is already gunfire in Kyiv. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the arguments are convincing, the battle or siege of the city of Kiev takes place in parallel with the Russian offensive or campaign in the Kiev region - LLs ( talk) 14:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - There's enough distinction between the Kyiv Offensive (which is the entire push south from the border) and the battle for Kyiv itself (which appears to be underway). There's enough precedent in the way campaigns, offensives, battles and sieges are written about in Wikipedia for this to have a stand-alone article. At this stage, I don't think there's much point in worrying about what people are calling it, just that it's a thing that's being given non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Which this is. Guettarda ( talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's a difference between an offensive and a battle. While the article might have been created prematurely, deleting it would be a bit too much of a hassle for me. Cheers, The man from Gianyar ( talk) 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep this is and will be an important article. This is the Ukrainian capital. The President is apparently still in Kyiv. This is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, Kyiv is objectively under attack. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep The city is under attack. A battle is undergoing. Bedivere ( talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think this was too soon to nominate for deletion, as the extent of the battle is not fully known as yet. When all is said and done, it might be better to merge it to the Kyiv Offensive article, but as of right now, it should stand. Onel5969 TT me 16:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete ( A7/ G12) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. -- MuZemike 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Aacs Sharma

Aacs Sharma (  | 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 doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines, and I couldn't find better sources from searching. BuySomeApples ( talk) 09:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The Reflections (New York band)

The Reflections (New York band) (  | 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 band doesn't seem to have accomplished anything of note either. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - They had a couple of regional singles in 1961-62 but those, and the group, are only found at basic streaming services. I also cannot find any pre-Internet info about the group via a Google Books search, except for minor name-drops in lists of songs. Note that there are many other bands called The Reflections in Wikipedia; if someone is likely to search for "The Reflections (New York band)" specifically, per policy this may require a Redirect to the disambig page at Reflections ("Bands" sub-section). Simply deleting the search term may be cleaner though. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 23:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 07:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of episodes in Against the Day

List of episodes in Against the Day (  | 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)

Looks to be a point-by-point plot summary of a relatively widely-received novel, but I'm not sure this kind of coverage is necessary—we don't employ it for the most popular fictional works, or the bible. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 06:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 06:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 06:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete this has been stuck in a redirect/recreate/repeat war for a while now. It should be deleted and salted as non-notable fancruft and wordcruft. A more detailed plot summary would be nice on the main article but this is way too excessive. Dronebogus ( talk) 07:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I finished reading the novel recently and had been consulting this page, because some of what happens in the book is not so straightforward. It's a useful resource to have a page with this much detail, but it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia instead of some other site. I think it would be better to have a shorter summary on the article for the book itself, rather than this separate page. This summary could still be ~4,000 words long and split up by the five sections of the book; but this present page is more like 8,000. I don't know if I would be the person to cut things down that much, though. And so many things happen in the book (while as the main page says, it does not have a conventional plot) that it would be a difficult editorial consideration as to which are the most important and which to leave out. myfavoriteboxer ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 Feb 2022 (UTC)
    • @ Myfavoriteboxer: there is actually a wiki for the novel. Hopefully that might be more your thing. Wikipedia’s job isn’t to catalog intricate details of fiction unless they’re subject to extensive scholarly analysis. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and Dronebogus. Utter fancruft. Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect (and protect to prevent reverting); I think the history here is worth preserving and redirects are cheap. Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not enough sources to warrant a dedicated article. Nothing sourced to retain. czar 02:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I am super disappointed. What did it hurt to keep it? I am about 80% through the book and found it super useful to check the summaries out. At least archive it somewhere or something! Like, literally, it did not hurt anybody to keep it, and many found it useful. It was a great resource. 69.92.107.142 ( talk) 05:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

First swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

First swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi (  | 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)

Second swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTNEWS. These articles are like press reports, and are not useful or encyclopedic. This is also not the first swearing-in of this man, as he was also the Chief Minister of Gujarat before. So, he had a couple of these ceremonies before as well. Peter Ormond 💬 04:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 05:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 05:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 05:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per nom. I swear these are ridiculously trivial. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. Yes, the articles are strings of event details, that, in a vacuum, I would call non-encyclopedic. But we have these articles for most (all?) recent US presidents, as far as I can tell, and certainly the inaugurals listed here match them for ceremony and repetitious press coverage generated. If I had my way I'd delete all of them; we have a tendency to write cruft about political figures, and these are prime examples; but when we have inaugural articles for the king of the Netherlands, and the President of Uruguay (two nations that, put together, have a smaller population than the city in which Modi was inaugurated), and even the wartime inauguration of Harry Truman that wasn't the result of an election at all, I think deleting these pages, that were each a consequence of the largest elections in human history, is a bad look. And before anybody starts citing WP:OSE at me; I make this argument because the OP argues to delete on general principles, not based on the volume of coverage generated. If we are arguing to disregard all news coverage of such an event under NOTNEWS, that argument very much applies to other inaugurals. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Looking a little further, there's over a hundred pages in Category:Presidential inaugurations. I'd gladly dispense with all of them (with exceptions for where there's substantial coverage outside contemporary press reports), but I struggle to believe that the most recent inaugurals in the most populous country represented therein are the least notable. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree with Vanamonde93. For the moment, I'm going with keep on the grounds that India is huge and vastly important, so it would look downright silly (and parochial) to delete this while retaining all the other examples above. I would lose no sleep if the entire class of articles disappeared, but I'm not sure I care enough to fight for their removal either. "Meh" is indeed the most reasonable reaction. Elemimele ( talk) 22:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm sure someone will nominate the other articles at some point. In the meantime though WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason to vote keep. Otherwise nothing stops people from making the same circular argument when the other articles are eventually nominated. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I will also support preserving the article. It meets all the minimum criteria for WIKI and yes we can talk about setting a standard to delete such inaugural events of other countries as well. Shrikanthv ( talk) 16:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per the nominator. This is clearly mindless trivia that could just as easily have a paragraph in the article for Narendra Modi. Same goes for similar articles. In the meantime their mere existence doesn't make this one magically worth keeping. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    It does when most of these articles have a weaker claim to notability than this page. A mass nomination would be more appropriate, or alternatively, batch nominations beginning with the least notable. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I can almost guarantee if they were mass nominated that people would come along to vote procedural keep and complain that they should have been nominated individually. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but that's a problem with our procedures that doesn't affect my point. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
What exactly does that have to do with the procedures? People can nominate articles individually or in a batch. There isn't really a preference procedurally. It mostly comes down to personal preference and people deciding to use however the nomination is done as an excuse to keep the article/articles, nothing else. In this case there's literally zero reason that a batch/mass nomination would be better. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Presidential inaugurations are a whole different type of ceremony than that of a prime minister taking office, where universally, it's usually it's done with much less pomp and circumstance in order to get to work, while a presidential inauguration is an exchange of power to an entirely new executive branch. Previous PM's have little to no details about their ceremonies, and Modi is clearly an aberration in wanting large ceremonies. Nate • ( chatter) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    You are aware, I presume, that in India the Prime Minister has all effective power over the executive branch, and that the inauguration of a prime minister is also when the executive branch is replaced in its entirety, excepting the president and vice-president, whose positions are essentially ceremonial? Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Fully aware; please don't try to condescend my rationale. But there are no other articles dealing with other Indian PM ceremonies, as they were minimal or done under circumstances which don't call for it. This is an outlier article among all Indian PM articles, thus my call for deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 02:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jashmir

Jashmir (  | 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 appears to read more like an advertisement and not have enough reliable source and this article is not enough notable to stand alone article . NabéTrath ( talk) 06:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to List of near-parabolic comets#C/2016 M1. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

C/2016 M1 (PANSTARRS)

C/2016 M1 (PANSTARRS) (  | 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 guideline of WP:NASTRO with no noteworthy scientific coverage and studies according to NASA ADS. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing. I still stand by the fact that this article shouldn't have been created, but I agree with Tol. Please have more restraint in the future before creating such another article on ongoing events. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 04:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Battle of Kyiv (2022)

Battle of Kyiv (2022) (  | 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 has not yet been a "Battle of Kiev". This is extremely hasty, we are not a crystal ball that predicts which battles may happen. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There is ongoing fighting in Kyiv Oblast. That there is active combat in the region and close to the city of Kiev, including bombardment of Kiev itself, is well-established. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • There have been battles nearby and in the province, correct. However, this doesn't translate into "Battle of Kiev". The city has not yet been subject to military action by the Russians, besides the bombardment which cannot be categorized as a battle alone. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • According to Politico, Russian forces advanced on Kyiv from both flanks on Thursday as heavy fighting raged across Ukraine. Your argument is akin to saying there was never a Battle of Moscow because the Nazis never entered the city of Moscow, despite battling intensely in the Moscow Oblast and attacking Moscow's defenses. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 03:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Russian army is already in the north of the Kiev region, which is practically unified with the Kiev metropolitan area, which is enough to say that the battle or campaign for Kiev is already underway. — LLs ( talk) 03:37, 25 February 2022
  • Speedy Keep per reasons above. Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The situation here is changing rapidly, and it's unclear exactly what's going on, but there's clearly military action nearby with the intent of capturing Kyiv in addition to the bombardment. I suggest keeping the article, and waiting. At the end of a week-long discussion, the situation will probably be completely different anyway. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 03:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Between the attack on Antonov Airport, and the overnight shelling and missile attacks, I think it's reasonable to have this article. If we need to sort out merges and splits, we can always do that later. Guettarda ( talk) 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep as Kiev may refer to the oblast. 93 ( talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • 93, this isn't a valid reason for speedy keep. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Gieniutkowo

Gieniutkowo (  | 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)

Unsure of the notability of this so bringing here for consensus. The topic is a pig sanctuary that looks like a typical local non profit. It has received some press coverage, some of which at least looks local. Overall I’m not sure this has the kind of coverage in RIS we’re looking for, but I don’t speak Polish so others may be better able to judge. Mccapra ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or merge. The coverage is gossipy-tabloidish-local. If we had an article about the local village, pl:Nowe Węgorzynko, it could be merged there. Pl wiki village entry does not mention this animal shelter. Cross wiki merge and translate is not likely, sigh. If there was a fandom pigpedia we could transwiki it there but alas... Anyway, policy-wise, I don't think this meets GNG. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC) PS. I stubbed Nowe Węgorzynko, now we have a merge target. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Keep. Meets WP:GNG, i.e. multiple sources that are reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage: Polityka, a national newspaper of record (I came across the subject there). Dzień Dobry TVN, an admittedly gossipy morning news broadcast on national TV. Głos Szczeciński, a local newspaper. You can take one out if you want, and we still meet GNG. The nomination suggests that the coverage is not reliable because it is local. That is not what GNG/ WP:RS says. (Maybe you thought the same rules apply as at the French Wikipedia? Wikipédia:CGNMO [ fr). Piotrus are you saying the sources are not reliable because they are "gossipy-tabloidish"? There is consensus at WP:RSP that there are gossipy reliable sources (Vogue magazine) and serious unreliable sources (Russia Today). There is consensus that Polityka is reliable and you yourself agree; maybe you missed that ref? There has been no reliability discussion on TVN or Głos Szczeciński, but they would pass. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 21:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Polityka is reliable, but the article is mostly about animal rights, and this NGO serves more of a dressing for the author's essay, it is just briefly describe and referenced. It's more like a clickbait style article, drawing readers in with the "read about the cute pig farm" stuff then quickly becoming an essay about animal rights, Polish/EU law and author's grievances... borderline SIGCOV and RS, yes, but overall there is very little we can say about this place. I'd still prefer a merge and redirect to the local village. Which I'll stub, why not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • 'Too little to say' is actually a relevant argument because GNG requires "significant" amounts. The article currently has eight sentences without any faff. That's enough. If consensus disagrees, Merge as you propose. The rest seems rather besides the point. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge, does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage very much seems to be routine heart-warming articles. And as a note, Trimton above seems to have a conflict of interest when they say "and we still meet GNG". Happy editing, -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Develop a list of what options we have for optimizing the article that we have here. Are there any other such animal sanctuaries in (or around) Poland? If not, and this is the first or only Polish animal sanctuary, perhaps, given the RELATIVE poverty in Poland compared with other European nations (historically, at least), that uniqueness could suggest notability, in that lack of means could have silenced other would-have-been sanctuary developers in Poland. These may ben first first, or these may be yet more humanitarians who are struggling against previous humanitarians' efforts' failures. We don't know. Would doing that discovery be worthwhile? Do these humanitarians have any identifiable ideologies other than veganism? MaynardClark ( talk) 05:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ MaynardClark An article I found that mentions it in passing stated, IIRC, it's a second (specializing in pigs, I think, certainly not the first animal shelter/sanctuary in Poland). So I don't think they qualify for the "first in fooland" defence... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    MaynardClark: 'Keep' is not about righting WP:GREATWRONGS. Piotrus is correct; an older azil for świń exists named Chrumkowo (cheeky redlink). ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no substantial claim to WP:GNG being made here by comments or at the article itself. That it's merely mentioned in sources is not GNG.
The article can basically just be summarized as a very small hobby farm/sanctuary. The have a pig in a wheelchair and are registered as a type of foundation in Poland (looks similar to a non-profit registration here in the US that most anyone can do). That's it. This is all extremely passing mention with content you'd really only see in stories that wouldn't satisfy WP:NOTNEWS policy. I also don't see any target for a merge/redirect, and I don't see any content that would really fit a merge either. If some potential other home does exist, better to write that in independently rather than through a merge. KoA ( talk) 19:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • "anyone can do" [what Gieniutkowo does] sounds like you just don't like the fact that this kind of subject gets significant coverage. All three major news refs spend several paragraphs on the subject. If you don't read Polish, press Ctrl+F (Cmd+F) and search for "Gien"(iutkowo). The name is mentioned 7 times in Polityka alone. Or use Google Translate, or DeepL or so. What part of NOTNEWS do you mean exactly, if you could clarify please? Thanks, ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yup, casting WP:ASPERSIONS or blatantly misrepresenting comments is never appropriate at AfD or anywhere on Wikipedia, take that battelground attitude somewhere else. The reality is that what you mention has already been addressed by myself and others already. KoA ( talk) 04:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies if I misrepresented your comments. How so though? I am confused. If you could clarify I will avoid this going forward. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the coverage is all of the type which news stations use to fill the last 5 minutes. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    hm so the order in which news stations cover things is no part of GNG or WP:DELREASONs. So I take it that you mean the coverage is too brief for a standalone article. What about WP:PLENTY? even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a stub waiting for expansion. Being "short" is not grounds for deletion ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS is policy, especially for fluff pieces, and continuing to twist the meaning of comments by others in not appropriate at an AfD. It does seem like we're reaching the point of WP:BLUDGEON here with comments like this. KoA ( talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 ( talk) 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)</p reply

  • Comment Ref bombed for a 10-ish line article, leaning non-notable. I can't read the sources or comment on their notability/reliability as sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Google translate, etc. help, but pretty much everything is passing mention. There's nothing really to justify keeping the article based on sources looked at so far. The few keep !votes are just vaguely saying there are sources, but like you allude to, none are of and depth that we'd be looking for to satisfy GNG or WP:NORG. I pruned the article a little bit to help with the AfD, but the ref-bombing really does come across as trying to pad the article. KoA ( talk) 15:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vithoji Rao Holkar

Vithoji Rao Holkar (  | 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 has only one source. I can't find more reliable source. There are some sources in Google, but they are dependent on Wikipedia only. Delete if better sources are not found. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 06:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

*Comment There is no significant coverage about him anywhere. It fails WP:GNG ThePremium Boy 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 06:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Ugh? He was a notable historical figure in India and a prince who was killed for a political reason, noted his rebellion and his death event by historian as end of the bridge is Holkar's Tomb, a temple to Mahadeo ( Siva ) in an oblong enclosure , erected in memory of Vithoji Rao Holkar, who was trampled to death by an elephant at Poona in 1802 [25]. His tomb was erected as a temple. I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. Searching his name in Hindi language have a bit more info. VocalIndia ( talk) 06:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As it stands, the article cannot be kept due to the dire lack of sources, and should be draftified at best. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Geschichte source. VocalIndia ( talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nominator was blocked as a sock. VocalIndia ( talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Here are more sources I've found recently Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency - Volume 18, Issue 2 - Page 281 stated Vithoji Holkar Killed , 1801 , the respect of his people , Bájiráv gave his attention to distressing and pillaging all who had opposed either himself or his father.
    In Page 361 stated In 1801 Vithoji Holkar was captured in a house in Bhámburda village , and by order of Bájiráv Peshwa to please Sindia , was dragged to death at the foot of an elephant through the streets of Poona . It was Yaahvantrav Holkar's rage at his brother's murder that led to the flight of Brijiritv from Poona and the treaty of Bassein (30th December 1802).
    Maharashtra State Gazeteers: Maratha period - Page 115 — In March 1801 the rebels were defeated near the Māņ river . Vithoji Holkar was captured by Bāpū Gokhale and sent to Pooņā . Bājī Rāv wished to make an example of him so as to deter the partisans of Amột Rāv from further attempts .
    Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and Other State Papers — Vithoji Holkar , brother of the Marátha Chief , fell into Bájiráv's hands , and he caused him to be executed in his ... This cruel murder took place in the spring of 1801 , and on the 26th October 1802 the Resident at Poona announces ...
    Baji Rao II and the East India Company, 1796-1818 - Page 28 — Vithoji Holkar began his depredations in the districts round about Pandharpur . ... Furthermore , in April , Vithoji Holkar was seized by Bapu Gokhale and sent to Poona. and many other sources
    [26], [27], [28], [29].....

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Vithoji Rao Holkar to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". VocalIndia ( talk) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on the potential for draftification may be helpful in obtaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Per VocalIndia StellarHalo ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article and AfD are a good illustration of why notability standards exist. The sources demonstrated by VocalIndia are independent and reliable (at least on the surface) but the totality of the text is not all that significant. What kind of article can be written from such passing mentions? Well, one like this one which barely mentions the nominal article subject and concerns mostly what others did. Even some of the actions of the article subject that are present are unsourced so we don't actually know much about them. Take out the unsourced and other people's actions and what is left is: He was born, he was captured, he was trampled by an elephant, and he was buried. Not actually an article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Commemt What the hell? He was a member of the royal court of the Holkar dynasty, a member of the Royal family, played a key role in the political rebellion against the other king, inherently notable as Holkar political system is an Absolute Monarchy where each prince can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. Do note, the monarchy of Holkar kingdom can't be compared with today's useless Constitutional monarchy, there is definitely a greater notability as the royal court fills both political and communal functions. I've voted 'keep' for someone living circa 250 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. If this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG. Even if they were from the historical period, would probably agree with the delete votes, but this type of referencing from millennia ago, passes WP:NPOL for his political significant. VocalIndia ( talk) 03:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There is no consensus that membership in a royal court grants inherent notability. At most, this argument suggests that this should be merged or redirected to Holkar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Hum? Royal Court is equivalent to the Privy Council at that time, by handling the court's internal affairs and also served as an interlocutor between the Raja (king) and other royal agencies, including the Parliament ! VocalIndia ( talk) 20:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Babur

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhim Singh Rana,

Why guys are trying to compare between the modern political system and monarchy? Well, I also agree with Respected editor Bearian's Proper his own standards (not a guideline): "Even Spouses and children of Modern's deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.". In this case, "House of Holkar" is not a deposed one, but very powerful ruling dynasty at that time. He had played major roles in the political affairs of his dynasty and cases of succession to the throne. He appears as a significant player in numerous histories of His kingdom's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. How much do you need? VocalIndia ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

What we need is actual sourcing for these statements. He had played major roles in the political affairs of his dynasty and cases of succession to the throne. How so? Why was his role "major"? Who says? He appears as a significant player in numerous histories Does he? Where are these histories? These statements appear to be extrapolations or interpretations of the sources that actually have been so far presented. What we know from these sources is nothing like as detailed or as significant as these claims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Eggishorn Check again above sources, " In 1801 Vithoji Holkar was captured in a house in Bhámburda village , and by order of Bájiráv Peshwa to please Sindia , was dragged to death at the foot of an elephant through the streets of Poona . It was Yaahvantrav Holkar's rage at his brother's murder that led to the flight of Brijiritv from Poona and the treaty of Bassein (30th December 1802)." Ohh You know our country's history more than a native Indian? What is your problem? VocalIndia ( talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
"The fact that he was killed for political reasons adds to this notability, and people can be curious about the basic facts of his life. An independent article makes the scant information about his life more easily accessible. You need to learn more AfD outcomes for historical figures, here is one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eutropia (sister of Constantine I). This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encylopedia of the English language speaking world. References to sources in Google Books and Tamil languages other than English are entirely acceptable to establish notability, although Book sources are preferable when readily available to choose from. VocalIndia ( talk) 20:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ VocalIndia:, Nativism and nationalism are poor substitutes for argumentation. I did read the sources and Indian nationality is not a prerequisite to source evaluation. Even in this passage, there is still no support for your statements. Where is it said that he played a major role in the succession? Where is it said that his role in the kingdom was significant? The only events that his role is significant in according to this was his death. Every other claim you make for his notability is unsupported. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
"The children of a monarch are notable." general consensus: says Necrothesp. He is eligible for an article whether or he had not involvement in the Holkar game of throne. Forgot to add other significant texts "Vithoji Holkar's death may be one of the factors influencing Yashwant Rao'sdecision, deserves the importance attributed to it." per [Baji Rao II and the East India Company, 1796-1818 - Page 30, Pratul Chandra Gupta · 1964]. VocalIndia ( talk) 20:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, clearly passes GNG. The nominator being a sock might have contributed to the AFD being nominated in the first place. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 20:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 07:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Arunodoy Asom

Arunodoy Asom (  | 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)

Sources in the article and available via WP:BEFORE do not contribute to the WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Text shows significant WP:REFBOMBing. Sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and significant coverage is lacking from nearly every source. See source assessment table for further detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Eggishorn
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"ULFA(I) Arunudoy Dahutiya with His Wife: বিবাহপাশত আৱদ্ধ আলফাৰ প্ৰচাৰ সচিব". News18. News18. Retrieved 13 December 2021. No YouTube No YouTube No one and a half minute story ✘ No
"Spl NIA Case No. 01/2017" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 November 2020. Retrieved 11 December 2021. No Court case No WP:RSPRIMARY No Case about a different person makes passing mention of an email address ✘ No
"Faultline of ULFA – Planned factional dispute". Times of Assam. 5 November 2011. Retrieved 11 December 2021. ~ Founded independently but recently purchased by a consultancy No Significant reliability concerns about the source and the article cited is an editorial/opinion piece No Passing mention only in an editorial ✘ No
"Govt Not Soft on ULFA: Anti-Talk Faction". Outlook (Indian magazine). 3 July 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2021. Yes Weekly newsmagazine Yes generally considered reliable No failed WP:Verification, no article with that title appears in the publication's archives ✘ No
Goswami, Priyankan. "From Arunodoy Dohotiya to Atanu Bhuyan". Retrieved 13 December 2021. ~ Founded independently but recently purchased by a consultancy No Significant reliability concerns about the source No About the media outlet's editor, not the person named ✘ No
"Confusion over NIA raid in ULFA hideout". The Assam Tribune. 15 September 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2021. Yes daily broadsheet newspaper Yes generally considered reliable No Most of the article is about central government talks with a different faction and the article is not sure the operation took place ✘ No
"Adiya at home: Ammo seized in Gohpur". Assam Times. Retrieved 14 December 2021. ~ unclear - appears to be a small community newspaper ~ unclear - appears to be a small community newspaper No passing mention in a very short (3 para) article ✘ No
"Incidents and Statements involving ULFA: 2010-2012". Archived from the original on 9 June 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2021. No South Asia Terrorism Portal of the Institute for Conflict Management ICM has apparent government ties ? not enough information No passing mentions only ✘ No
"All ULFA members to adopt `Asom` as new surname". Zee News. 20 January 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2021. Yes flagship of Zee Media Corp Yes generally regarded as reliable No Mentioned as signer of email communiqué ✘ No
"All ULFA members to adopt 'Asom' as new surname". MoneyControl. 20 January 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2021. No finance website No finance website that scrapes news stories for content No Mentioned as signer of email communiqué ✘ No
"Ulfa hawks to have common surname". The Times of India. 21 January 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2021. Yes daily broadsheet newspaper Yes generally considered reliable No Mentioned as signer of email communiqué ✘ No
"Seven Assam Rifles jawans killed in NSCN-K ambush". India Today. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Yes Flagship publication of India Today Group Yes generally considered reliable No does not mention article subject at all ✘ No
Singh, Bikash (11 September 2020). "NIA files charge sheet against seven anti talk ULFA cadres in Bhaskar Kalita Killing case of 2018". The Economic Times. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Yes daily newspaper Yes generally considered reliable ~ short article mentions this person as one of a number that were accused of an attack on government troops ~ Partial
"NIA files chargesheet against 7 ULFA cadres for killing Assam Police officer in 2018". The Print. 11 September 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Yes online news outlet Yes per WP:NEWSORG although no opinions have been ventured at WP:RSN or WP:RSP ~ short article mentions this person as one of a number that were accused of an attack on government troops ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_25&oldid=1075451305"