From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Xingolati

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

Appears that this subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV... It was a one time event with not much to be found on a Google news search, and the article reads as an ad. Headphase ( talk) 22:55, 28 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Bunching parameter

Bunching parameter (  | 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)

"Bunching Parameter" has several different meetings that come up when you do a literature search. Once parameter is a figure of merit for klystrons. One has to do with the degree to which particle beam bunches are distributed along their direction of travel. And the one in this article has to do with the distribution of particles in an arbitrary phase space. I would argue that none of the three are sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article at this time. In particular, the subject of this article is primarily sourced to papers by the same two authors, and does not appear to have widespread adoption. PianoDan ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge. From my talk page comments: In a recent computational particle physics package, there is a "BunchingParameters" class, but the sources for it point to 5 papers by Chekanov and one paper in which it was applied, with Chekanov also one of the authors. This metric for particle beam fluctuations just hasn't gotten any traction beyond the original authors. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge somewhere, perhaps factorial moment, but as it stands there isn't enough independent reliable sourcing to support an article. It's possible that there could be source support for a broader article on types of bunching parameter measures in physics and electronics, i.e., measures of particle flow deviation from Poisson. But this is not that article. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 00:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I deprodded this because I found descriptions of a bunching parameter for particle beams going beck to the 1960s. However, it is now clear that this is not the same measure described by Chekanov & Kuvshinov. No evidence has been found that the latter has been used by anyone other than the original authors so it therefore lacks notability for a standalone Wikipedia page. Spinning Spark 09:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per above. I was the one that added the prod tag. The concept described in the article is used only by Chekanov. Other uses of 'bunching parameter' in academic literature are referring to other things. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No notable references are present for the information in the article. Lacks notability. Timetraveller80 ( talk) 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge if there is somewhere that it fits. Gusfriend ( talk) 10:55, 2 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. Renaming the article is outside of AFD's scope. ✗ plicit 23:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kinda El-Khatib

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources are not valuable. Kadıköylü ( talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The simple assertion that "sources are not valuable" hardly covers the situation of a story widely covered in media. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 00:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be more helpful if everyone assumed good faith. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, you are right User:Charles Matthews but (Redacted), If these sources in the article are not independent and reliable? What are the reliable sources? Really weird-- Dw Journalist ( talk) 11:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
This comes from a long-term abuser that called me a dog on Simple because I !voted delete on an AfD? We've passed the assuming good faith point a long time ago by now... ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
He insulted me in Trwiki, the admin hid the logs. Before being notable on Wikipedia, Ali needs to learn to communicate respectfully with people.-- Kadıköylü ( talk) 12:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Striking through the !vote of a block-evading, globally locked cross-wiki LTA. Girth Summit (blether) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with User:Charles Matthews that this was too facile. There's sources for the person over a long enough period of time, from acceptable sources, that establish notability. Drmies ( talk) 13:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • While I'm deeply uncomfortable with how this article came into being, that's a conduct issue rather than content, as long as this doesn't cross the bright-ish line of G5, and it doesn't. From what I can see based on the sources and some additional Googling, the trial of El-Khatib and subsequent proceedings are notable, but under WP:BIO1E I'm not seeing much evidence that she is. So, keep but move to Trial of Kinda El-Khatib or a similar title. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but move to Trial of Kinda El-Khatib (or similar) per Tamzin. Mini apolis 00:34, 30 January 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Audiobulb Records

Audiobulb Records (  | 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)
  • Keep The fact that there are no articles on albums released by Audiobulb is not really relevant - some labels are not principally album-driven, and album articles are pinged off of this site with alarming frequency anyway. The artist question is more relevant, and (at least) three notable artists is maybe not enough on its own, but it's getting there. What pushes me over is coverage - the material from Cyclic Defrost, Headphone Commute, NowThen, and this from Igloo is enough to make the difference. Chubbles ( talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact that the owner David Newman, a musician, has been interviewed in several publication, and mentions his record company in passing during those interviews does not consist of WP:SIGCOV. The Headphone Commute and the NowThen interviews do give the company some coverage, but those alone do not amount to WP:NOTABILITY. The Cyclic Defrost interview ( Link) is a perfect example of the types of sources used in the article which have no weight whatsoever; Audiobulb is simply mentioned in passing. It is not the focus of the interview and does not represent WP:SIGCOV. User:Chubbles's statement "three notable artists is maybe not enough on its own, but it's getting there" pushes me to vote delete because this company is clearly not ready for a Wikipedia page yet. The deletion of a Wikipedia page doesn't mean a subject is blocked for life; it just means that they have not achieved the notability required to warrant a Wikipedia page at this time. Once the company grows, they may be eligible for a new Wikipedia page.-- Fanofblackened ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the above-mentioned Headphone Commute blog interview Link and the Now and Then blog interview Link that these are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. But outside of that, and with those alone, there is not enough WP:SIGCOV and nothing to make up actual WP:NOTABILITY. A company needs a lot more than two interviews on webzines to generate notability. I don't see any significant importance in the scene to justify this record label having a Wikipedia page. It's an underground record label.
Also pointed out above is the fact that the company's owner David Newman has been interviewed a number of times, but the focus of those interviews was on his band (or solo project) Autistici. Examples like the already mentioned Cyclic Frost interview Link and the Textura interview Link are perfect examples. They only mention Audiobulb in passing. Maybe Newman, as an artist, warrants a Wikipedia page (in which case a Redirect could be placed on Audiobulb Records), but his company does not in my opinion. I'm also taking into consideration that this article was created by Newman himself in 2006 (16 years ago) and the company has yet to gain any additional notability or significant coverage. 16 years is a long time to "get there" and it probably shouldn't have been accepted on Wikipedia to begin with.-- OrangeZestAir ( talk) 20:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This one fails WP:NOTABILITY. A record label needs more than a few interviews to achieve notability and be recognized as important or encyclopedic. I'm basing my vote on the following:
1. Not a single mention of the company on Newspapers.com or The British Newspaper Archive.
2. A mere 4 results show up on the Internet Archive, none of which offer WP:SIGCOV. 2 of them are listings of hundreds of record labels (Audiobulb has a small mention, or rather listing as one of them), 1 is a mention of the label in the thanklist of a Various Artists compilation released by another record label, and the last is some kind of DVD with no preview that was released by another company. Nothing here validates the notability of this company.
3. No results on ISNI, VIAF, LOC, WorldCat IDs or British National Archives (it is a British record label). While this is not uncommon for small record labels, ones of any stature would have some sort of results in there, direct or indirect. WorldCat proper only lists a single release held somewhere (though the library or archive is not listed, so it could have been a manual, non-physical entry); it appears to be a Various Artists compilation released by Audiobulb. This company boasts having released over 100 releases, yet nothing is held in national archives, libraries or databases? That, to me, is a clear sign of lacking notability.
4. The article is written with WP:PUFFERY and WP:NOR and reads like a press release. Attempts have been made over the years to clean up the article (including myself about a year ago) but puffery is continuously re-added by the owner in a WP:CoI. The article offers little interlinking to other Wikipedia articles other than the three bands brought up in the deletion request; no releases (be it album, EP, single, compilation, live or VA) have their own Wikipedia pages, and that would have been another good way to judge its notability. If the record label has not released anything of significance, then how can it be significant itself? I do not see this company as notable, important or encyclopedic.
WikiGuruWanaB ( talk) 02:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete Leaving aside the tone of the article, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of this organisation, fails NCORP HighKing ++ 18:58, 4 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nazri Muhammad

Nazri Muhammad (  | 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 to be confused with Muhd Nazri Ahmad, who is notable. Nazri Muhammad has never played a game at WP:FPL level so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches such as this and this failed to show any coverage that would count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 28 January 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. Consensus is the sourcing is not there to confirm this is truthful (historically so, no issue with the creator's work). If someone would like this content to incubate as a myth in draftspace for possible restoration as such, just ping me. Star Mississippi 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Gravata case

Gravata case (  | 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've been unable to find any sources that can verify that this actually happened. Everything I've been able to find appears to have come from the same original story (possibly through a newswire?), which doesn't have any additional details besides what's already in the article. The very few modern references aren't from reliable sources. CarringtonMist ( talk) 21:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Found a woman in 1863 who supposedly had 13 sets of triplets. [3] That's as far as I'm going down this rabbit hole. Fine with deletion.-- rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Bell, Julia (May 1933). "Plural Births with a New Pedigree". Biometrika. 25 (1/2): 110–120.
  2. ^ "Most sets of triplets - same mother". Guinness World Records.
  3. ^ "Nouvelles Diverses". Gazette médicale de Lyon. 15 (10). Société de médecine (Lyon): 440. 1 October 1863.
  • Interesting. I took a look at the JSTOR link and the info on Maddalena Granata doesn't seem to match up with the info in the Gravata sources in terms of gender/number of the children. CarringtonMist ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The Granata story and the Gravata story seem to come together together in some sources. But, yeah, bunch of anecdotal extraordinary tales. rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 04:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rewrite as an article about a myth, not least to avoid going round this loop again in future. Pam D 12:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I created the article. The sources support the information in the article. If it is a fraud or hoax, it is not of my construction. There were other sources found, I believe, but they were the same article in different papers.-- Auric talk 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Hi, Auric, thanks for commenting! I definitely didn’t think this was a hoax started by the creator of the article, and I hope it’s clear that I didn’t intend to imply that it was (I didn’t, and probably wouldn’t have, added the hoax tag to the article). One of the problems I have with the new info you've added to the article is that the claims for Gravata vs. Granata are quite different, and I'm not sure any sources actually connect the two (the claims are also pretty different re: the number of children/multiples and the location in Italy--one is Tuscan, the other is from Campania). I’m not sure if the French source linked by rsjaffe above links the two at all, as I can’t read French, but maybe it does? I’d be okay with changing the article to be clearer about the unverified nature of the claims, and the possibility this was a rumor/hoax of some kind that went around a lot in the early 20th century, but wouldn't that technically fall under WP:OR, since none of the sources actually say it was a hoax? CarringtonMist ( talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The problem is that the story was sent by newswire and while the same information was in the initial stories, some typesetters were not as careful as others, like this article from the Alexandria Gazette that has Mocera instead of Nocera, and some papers didn't publish the full story or changed it to fit. Most of them mention a French paper, the Paris Register, whose source is other Italian papers, so there may have been some translation problems as well. My initial article was based on later news reports that lacked the detail of the first reports. I'm going to move it to "Granata case" if the article survives. Also the french source is about a Spanish case.-- Auric talk 16:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Interesting to note that Granata is also in List of people with the most children, so that may need cleanup too, pending the outcome of the work on this page. rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 19:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is fascinating. I'm in favour of deletion because we really have no idea, from these sources, whether this actually happened or not, as the nom says. I don't think this article can be written as PamD suggests, because that would be WP:OR, unless someone can find a secondary source discussing that this is a myth? And I don't see any good reason to perpetuate a (possible? probable?) error made by 19th-century newspapers by presenting this as fact. Excluding period newspapers, I'm finding nothing at all - nothing anyone could use to show it's a myth, but also nothing one could use to show otherwise. I'm not sure we even have enough information to really go looking - others have mentioned the name, but additionally there is no Liposta/Lipoata in Nocere as far as I can tell. (Liporta/o exists, though: [2].) So for all we know, neither of the names we have for her are correct either. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
You've got to understand this news story was published at a time when there was no unified spell checking as we understand it. Local typesetters might not have understood how to spell a foreign word from another language. Typos do not invalidate a source. Also, since there is no discussion of it as a myth, we can assume that it isn't one. There is a pattern where the original sources have more details with dates and names, which are gradually lost as the story diffuses. I've found mentions in sources as late as 1999, although the "fl" has been lost and they assume she died in 1886, despite the original sources that mention her "robust health" at the time. One of Ripley's cartoons mentions her, published in 1955, but with distorted details again (52 children instead of 62).-- Auric talk 11:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. I think you're misunderstanding my point about the spelling. The point was that it would be difficult for anyone looking for information on her that does not come from the original news articles in question to be sure they had a "real" null result. If I find that there are no census records for a Maddelena Granata/Gravata, does this mean this story was completely fabricated? Maybe. It might also mean that her name was bungled before it even made it to the first news story.
  2. since there is no discussion of it as a myth, we can assume that it isn't one This is not how myths and hoaxes work.
  3. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good maxim to keep in mind here. These aren't just "not extraordinarily good sources", they are highly unreliable ones. I wouldn't trust a 19th-century gossipy news wire story farther than I could throw it, but additionally this is precisely the kind of story that is easy for newspapers to get wrong - difficult for overseas papers to fact-check, easily misspelled names and places, easily misreported numbers, and an eye-popping central claim. It's dubious until proven otherwise.
  4. The only claim we can accurately make here at present is that many newspapers reported this story, and said these things. Granata might be notable, if she existed. But the claim we can accurately make is not notable. No one appears to have discussed "this case was described in several newspapers", only repeated it. If the best we can do is WP:ITEXISTS, we don't have an argument for keep here. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article could be rewritten as a myth, but that would be WP:OR since all the sources refer to it as a fact. The point about names is well taken, but WP:UCRN applies here. At this point, I think I should have looked harder for sources before I published it. I'd be happy to have it moved to draft for more refining. -- Auric talk 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, it would also be WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR to explicitly connect all of these cases, since there don't seem to be any secondary sources that discuss this story as a whole. AFAICT we're the ones making the connections between different names, locations, etc. They're pretty obvious connections, but my understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is that that doesn't matter. I'm also not sure how WP:UCRN is related to the verifiability point that asilvering made? CarringtonMist ( talk) 15:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I think that particular OR problem could be cleared up by wording choices pretty easily - but the far bigger problem is that there is no secondary reporting on this at all (that we have found), since in the absence of a historical document (birth certificates, pension record, etc) these newspaper articles are acting as a primary source (of a hoax, it currently appears). You're correct that WP:UCRN is not at all related to my point. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I say WP:UCRN because the majority of sources call her Maddalena Granata while some (later) sources call her Gravata. We can assume these are the same people, because the likelihood of two women with almost the same name, from the same place, having had a very large number of surviving children and no reporting on this coincidence is quite unlikely. -- Auric talk 14:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per asilvering. The subject is likely a hoax, with no evidence to suggest otherwise and also lacks notability. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The level of detail, particularly in the earlier medical sources, argues against this. I found an Italian source from the Bullettino delle Scienze Mediche which says that her doctor has had four of the "fruits" preserved in an anatomical cabinet. -- Auric talk 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Responded on talk. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 16:40, 2 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 merge to NBL Finals. ✗ plicit 23:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

List of NBL (Australia) Finals

List of NBL (Australia) Finals (  | 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 shouldn't have it's own article space, per WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:NLIST. Perhaps can be redirected to NBL page. List also only includes primary sources. Seems cut and dry. Spf121188 ( talk) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Vinnylospo, your argument for keep is a textbook case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Again, I know you created this article so I understand why you want it kept, but this is clearly just a stats page, and WP is not the forum for this, per WP:NOTSTATS. Spf121188 ( talk) 22:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Gusfriend, I would support this move as alternative to deletion. Spf121188 ( talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Answer for @ Spf121188:, I am down with that. Especially as I don't want any of my stuff discarded.
  • Merge I think the idea by gusfriend is a good one: the information there would supplement the NBL Finals article, and it'd probably be fine to have just one. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 20:11, 1 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. Improvement in article space makes sense now that notability has been established. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 04:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Cradle of Erotica

Cradle of Erotica (  | 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 in such rough shape that I have had to bring it to AfD for repair. There may be coverage in secondary sources, but I wouldn't say this article meets the GNG in its current condition. It also has major tone and style issues. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. AFD is not for repair... The stuff sourced to the book itself can be cut on sight. I found academic reviews in American Sociological Review Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1964), pp. 156-157 and The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 271-272 Geschichte ( talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (Withdrawing previously non-policy based! Vote) as non-notable Raj-era/Victoriana bullshit. Mostly sourced to the book itslf (so lacking WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources): "a female under the influence of hashish had the purported ability to have consecutive vaginal and anal sex with over one hundred men". Unsourced. "Arabian women engaging in copulation with several males at once". PTS. "Chinese Muslims and Buddhists are also notorious for using their servant boys as means of sexual release." What the fuck. What the actual fuck? " Female masturbation is seen as an outlet for girls’ frustration and aggressiveness", "Fellatio is also witnessed between men and their boy servants". All primary sourced WP:SYNTH and OR.
    Nuke from orbit. Total crap. SN54129 08:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that you don't approve of the contents of the book, a sentiment I share, is irrelevant to the prospect of this being an encyclopedic topic. I do however agree that everything sourced to the book itself should be nuked from orbit. Geschichte ( talk) 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
It is perfectly normal for a summary of a book to be sourced to the book itself. Unfortunately in this case the book itself is full of nonsense. I'm also in favour of nuking that section regardless of the AfD outcome. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: unfortunately for all of us this looks like a pretty clear WP:NBOOK pass. But if someone wanted to drop some WP:TNT on it I sure wouldn't complain. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clearly a notable book based on the number of reviews. Also, I'm against nuking the summary section as those above have suggested. Based on the page numbers given in the references, the summary covers the general areas of the book fairly evenly. Only justification for WP:TNT seems to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT -- Ficaia ( talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Ficaia However, MOS:PLOTSOURCE is about works of fiction, which afaict this is not. WP:PRIMARY#5 may be more relevant here. Sorry for leading you wrong, but you did say "plot." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, I guess the question then is whether the info in the summary section "analyzes, evaluates, interprets, or synthesizes". Does simply stating the contents of the work do this? Ficaia ( talk) 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Here is a review, should be good for a GNG-point: [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hmm, maybe that one was in the article already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - maybe a merge might be better if modern sources (like Boers) discuss this book as part of greater discussion on Edwardes' work. MSG17 ( talk) 22:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Masters, the second author, seems to be the same as the coauthor of the book Mind Games which inspired Mind Games (John Lennon song) (cf. [4]). He was a visible figure in 60s/70s counterculture. My experience with tracking down references in this area is that finding the references can be hard, but patience can yield high quality coverage. While only one of the two reviews found by Geschichte gives clear SIGCOV, I think the chances are high that there is more out there. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This AfD nom clearly fails WP:BEFORE and every sentence in it is contrary to the intent of AfD. If we didn't have a substantial delete opinion from Serial Number 54129 I would be !voting keep on procedural grounds. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the reminder, Chalst—I've changed my !vote to a comment, as it was more subjective than policy based. SN54129 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I brought it mostly out of frustration for the article's contents, I will admit... It's hard with a book that was being described as "not a book" by vandals! The condition of the article was so odd I could not gauge the book's notability. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 14:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • No worries, I've certainly started at least one AfD with a nom that was on what was back then very dodgy policy grounds because it seemed the cleanest way to solve a problem in articlespace (my first nom was in this class, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Schwartz (journalist)). Are you happy with the idea of cleaning up the article using regular editing? If so, by retracting your nom we can speedy close this AfD using WP:CSK rationale #1. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - nom fails BEFORE, as per comment above, and no clear delete rationale has emerged in the course of this AfD. While the sourcing we have for the article isn't rock solid, there remains uncertainty as to whether there might be better sources. It looks like both of the authors might merit encyclopedic coverage, so the ATD merge opinion of MSG17 doesn't seem attractive. The article clearly needs cleanup: with that, the article might be better suited to improve in articlespace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:27, 2 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Barbados–Turkey relations

AfDs for this article:
Barbados–Turkey relations (  | 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)

Deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbadian–Turkish relations (2nd nomination).

What we have here is no embassies, some trade (only one way), ministers meeting eachother at international events, and fluff about the two countries having the same policy towards third countries (Cuba, Belize) which don't constitute a relation between countries 1+2 Geschichte ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Kinda funny considering your own nomination logic on "Nicaragua-Turkey" which says the complete opposite of what you've said here and is flipped 180 degrees which said: (quote)Someone made it their task to create pages on Turkey's relations with every country in the world. Now, the task is to root out the pages without merit. Turkey's relations with *Nicaragua* seem tangential, there are no embassies. This is not to say the countries are alien; some goods are traded one way, though none the other way; some meetings have happened, but most contact seems to be funneled through broader organizational frameworks. The cultural relations are probably pretty slim.(end quote) So your agenda is just to delete Turkey articles eh? CaribDigita ( talk) 01:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand a word of your argument, except for the last sentence, which is of course false, and an extremely weak counter to the nomination. I can assure you that my agenda is to keep every article which describes a viable encyclopedic topic, and delete every article which doesn't. Geschichte ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete level of interaction is minor. Trade is very low and basically one way. LibStar ( talk) 13:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per lack of significant coverage. Yilloslime ( talk) 21:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a Turkish-language search also failed to find anything of note. No indication of notability. -- GGT ( talk) 00:24, 2 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. ✗ plicit 23:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicaragua–Turkey relations

Nicaragua–Turkey relations (  | 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)

Someone made it their task to create pages on Turkey's relations with every country in the world. Now, the task is to root out the pages without merit. Turkey's relations with Nicaragua seem tangential, there are no embassies. This is not to say the countries are alien; some goods are traded one way, though none the other way; some meetings have happened, but most contact seems to be funneled through broader organizational frameworks. The cultural relations are probably pretty slim.

Another interesting thing is what has not taken place. Both countries have had their share of tumultuous events, where are the reactions, support, criticisms etc.?

To cast light upon the relationscruft we are trimming, these are the previous deletions of Turkish relations that I could find: Andorra, Barbados, Bhutan, Central African , Congo, Dominica, Eswatini, Fiji, Grenada, Iceland, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Palau, Papua , Saint Kitts , São Tomé , Tuvalu , Vanuatu . Geschichte ( talk) 20:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: usually I'm a supporter of deleting unnotable bilateral relations pages due to a lack of significant coverage, and I agree that many Turkish bilateral relations pages were created with little concern for sourcing, but something clearly exists here: in 2013, the two countries signed an aviation agreement [5]; in 2017, Nicaragua's president called on Turkish businesspeople to invest in Nicaragua [6]; in 2018, President Erdogan congratulated Ortega for his re-election [7], and the Nicaraguan government sent congratulations for the 95th anniversary of the Turkish republic [8]; The foreign ministers of Turkey and Nicaragua met in July 2019 ( tweet for WP:V purposes) and on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September 2019 [9]. The foreign ministers met again in 2021 in Ankara where they signed an agreement on education cooperation and two memoranda of understanding [10], [11], with Turkey expressing opposition to sanctions against Nicaragua [12], and the Nicaraguan FM reiterating the collaboration of both countries on the strengthening of international law (which I assume is related to sanctions) [13], and discussing Nicaragua-Turkey relations [14]. In October 2021, the Nicaraguan government congratulated Erdogan for the 98th anniversary of the proclamation of the Turkish republic [15]. It is true that the two countries don't have embassies, but in October they both expressed their intention to open them ( Spanish EFE agency, again). I'm really bad with non-English Turkish sources, but if anyone wants to dig them out, they could also be useful to ascertain notability. Pilaz ( talk) 06:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There was also a 2013 meeting between the minister of foreign affairs of both countries in 2013 at the UN, where the central theme was the deepening of economic relations [16]. A July 2017 meeting between the two (new) ministers in 2017 seems to have also taken place [17]. Regarding the opening of embassies, there was also this article [18], although I'm not sure of the date, given that two are listed. Finally, an in-depth article about Nicaragua-Turkey relations seems to have been written in the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa, but it's behind a paywall, so I can't evaluate its coverage [19]. Pilaz ( talk) 06:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources cover the economic relations which, while modest, do exist. It's the level of coverage which determines notability not the volume of trade. Greenshed ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in light of sources found by Pilaz. LibStar ( talk) 22:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hat tip to Pilaz for digging up some media coverage, but to me this doesn't cut it. I'm just seeing brief coverage of standard diplomacy. "The president sends his congratulations to the president on his election" kind of stuff. I'm not saying these countries don't have relations or that their relationship isn't important, I just don't see that anyone is really talking about it in any real depth. Yilloslime ( talk) 21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although admittedly not the deepest relations, there is enough material here to merit an article, particularly in the light of the official agreements signed between the two countries, which is definitely distinct from the non-existent "relations" that we see on AfD and is indicative of something a notch up from your standard exchange of courtesies. Building on the sources given by Pilaz, see this for an overview of the two countries' relations in the Ottoman times as well as in the 2010s. That being said, if we had a separate article on Turkey's foreign policy on Central American nations, we may have considered merging (with some details also added to the relevant Nicaragua articles), but we don't, and a separate article is acceptable. -- GGT ( talk) 00:18, 2 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Christopher Kukk

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

Seems to fail WP:NPROF. "The Wilma Register Sharp & Marc Boyd Sharp Dean of the Cormier Honors College for Citizen Scholars" is not a notable named chair. The page promotes a book he wrote; I found no reviews of it in Google Scholar, but I did find a single reliable review of it in Publishers' Weekly - as well as a small group of unreliable reviews (sites with Wordpress in its URL are not mentioned). A sole reliable review is nothing upon which to build a biography. Geschichte ( talk) 20:09, 28 January 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 per speedy deletion criterion G7 FASTILY 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Dee's Big Nuts

Dee's Big Nuts (  | 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 PRODed this page because its subject does not appear to be notable. The page's only reference is a self-published source, and it does not seem like there are any reliable sources to use for this page. The page creator removed the PROD tag, however it was not explained why, and my concerns were not addressed. So it goes to AfD. EDM fan 2 ( talk) 19:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable, no primary sources available and does not meet WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Garnarblarnar ( talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete TikTok meme with no indication of actual notability; fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. DanCherek ( talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No references other than a Google Books listing. I note one of the book data sources listed in the Google Books help pages is "Web sites like Wikipedia". Nobody else seems to be paying attention to it as notable. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. No coverage in media outside of YouTube and TikTok, where the views on the supposedly 'viral' readings don't even seem that large to me? Anyway, fails both GNG and NBOOKS. — Ghost River 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No sources found. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It exists and can be purchased, but neither of those things establish how it passes notability guidelines. There are no sources out there to establish notability. I think that this could likely be WP:SNOW closed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On first inspection, looks like a joke page. – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
On closer inspection, I would have probably tagged as G3.
  • It's not a hoax, as this does seem to exist although the book does seem to be written as just a big joke. It's just decidedly non-notable. As far as vandalism goes, it's not exactly obvious vandalism, although I do think that it was written to be more funny than encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete immediately. If there was any doubt that the article for this completely un-notable book was created simply to be funny, simply take a look at how the creator of the page, @ Poopykibble:, wrote up for the plot. Does this seem like it is intended to convey encyclopedic information? Cpotisch ( talk) 06:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have to agree the intent in creating this article was clearly vandalistic. It is never justified to include the full text of a book in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It should be noted, though, that Wikipedia does not shy away from including spoilers. signed, Willondon ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There's literally no chance that this results in a consensus to keep the article . Can we change this to a speedy deletion or just close the discussion even though it hasn't been the full 7 days? We're dealing with pure spam. Cpotisch ( talk) 17:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed - delete immediately signed, Willondon ( talk) 18:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have tagged this page for speedy deletion under G6 (XfD) because it appears that there's a consensus to delete the page. I didn't want to tag the page for deletion as vandalism as I was assuming good faith due to it appearing like an article in development, but I also felt that the page was a bit unencyclopedic. EDM fan 2 ( talk) 18:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I admit I made the page as a joke. Besides the page is useless now since the storyline section got deleted. I apologize for creating a joke page. Poopykibble ( talk) 19:10, 3 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Edwin Turner (athlete)

Edwin Turner (athlete) (  | 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)

In October of last year it was decided that those who did not medal in the Olympics are not default notable. Looking at the Olympia record on him, I see no other outside Olympics ways he might be notable. Seaching both for Edwin and his nickname Ned I was not able to find any sources that would add towards passing GNG. I see no indication that we should have an article on this person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 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 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

University of Sustainable Environmental Studies and Applied Research

University of Sustainable Environmental Studies and Applied Research (  | 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 was proposed about 10 years ago. Quick search doesnt seem to find anything. Does it exist? Rathfelder ( talk) 18:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete— WP:TOO SOON. It may exist, but all except one of the 5 sources below are only passing mentions, not enough for GNG. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. "Christina Nuama". thenamesdictionary.com. 2016. Retrieved 2022-02-03. University of Sustainable Environmental Studies and Applied Research and development of the university. The members were: Dr Christina Amoaku-Nuama, the Convener Dr Raymond Bening, Chairman Professor Jane Naana Opoku Agyemang.
  2. Akrofi, Michael (March 15, 2016). "Kwahu Traditional Rulers Express Appreciation To The NDC Government". Peacefmonline.com - Ghana news. Retrieved 2022-02-03. the choice of the area as one of two sites to welcome the new University of Sustainable Environmental Studies and Applied Research
  3. "Mahama Cuts Sod For Construction of E/R University". GhanaStar. December 12, 2016. Retrieved 2022-02-03. President John Dramani Mahama on Thursday, December 29 cut sod for the construction of the University of Environment and Sustainable Development at Somanya in the Eastern Region.
  4. Jeffrey, Peter N. (June 21, 2020). "Ghana Beyond Aid – Higher Educational Development In Bolgatanga". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 2022-02-03. President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo Addo's Presidential Library would be built at University of Technology and Applied Science (UTAS) in Bolgatanga, Upper East Region and not at the Kyebi campus of University of Sustainable, Environmental Studies and Applied Research.
  5. Fredua-Kwarteng, Eric (July 23, 2020). "Politics and the obsession with university proliferation". University World News. Retrieved 2022-02-03. In addition, the Mahama administration planned to build another university called the University of Sustainable Environmental Studies and Applied Research in the Eastern region of Ghana.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamia Tul Muntazar

Jamia Tul Muntazar (  | 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 entity fails WP:GNG and there's no indication of WP:NORG being met as well. I tried my BEFORE search in English and Urdu but sadly there's nothing much available. Comments! ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per TheAafi's nomination. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 08:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the references in the article are primary, trivial, or both. I couldn't find anything else when I looked either. Except for more of the same. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 02:31, 1 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) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jesse L. Helms

Jesse L. Helms (  | 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 local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mayors of places the size of Greenville then, or even Greenville now (it has grown about 12,000 in the 40 or so years since he was mayor), are not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability, and being a backer of a presidential candidate at the level he was is not a show of notability either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no case made for notability; small-city mayors definitely don't meet any of our criteria unless they do something (for good or ill) of national or global interest. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they existed as mayors, but this article features nothing like the depth of substance or sourcing it would take to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor. KidAd • SPEAK 18:17, 2 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 Apex, North Carolina#Government as a valid ATD despite it not likely being a search term. As gidonb says, some of the mayors are mentioned here. I'm leaving the history intact under the redirect as there's no reason to delete-the issue is with the location of the content, not them being memorialized. Star Mississippi 01:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

List of mayors of Apex, North Carolina

List of mayors of Apex, North Carolina (  | 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)

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At less than 60,000 Apex is still not at a level that a mayor is presumed to be default notable, especially since it is in a county with 1.1 million people, and not by any measure the leading community in the county. In the 1990 census barely 30 years ago its population was still under 5,000. In the same time period the county population has more than doubled. We seem to have articles on none of the people on the list, and if we did it would probably be a case like some cities I can think of where a mayor later became a member of the US house, but that is not a sign that being mayor itself was truly notable, and not a reason to create a list of mayors of a place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Apex is not large enough that its mayors would be presumed notable just for existing as mayors, so it's not the kind of place where we need to retain a list of non-notable people referenced exclusively to a primary source. Bearcat ( talk) 17:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Apex, North Carolina#Government. At 60k, Apex is a sizable city. Nevertheless, none of its mayors have entries as of yet. Hence, per WP:ATD, redirect this list to Apex, North Carolina. Several of the mayors are mentioned at Apex, North Carolina and the mayor of Apex gets updated right there! Without prejudice against recreation if and when multiple mayors ever get stable articles. gidonb ( talk) 13:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Importance is not found by size alone. A place this size in the immediate vicinity of a much larger city does not have the importance that a quick analysis of size alone would suggest. Also, its current size is a very recent development. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Correct. Apex grew most of the 20th century, and the growth in the 1990s was explosive. You're making a solid argument to keep. But even with this large population, theoretically, a mayor can be elected and shortly thereafter die or resign. Or when Apex was small an accomplished business leader or academic may have become mayor or a mayor may have had a notable political or managerial career after their term. As you mention, one does not know by size alone. All this is very interesting in theory BUT we are not discussing here whether to keep or delete a mayor's article. This is about a list that, objectively, has no items with articles. Hence a redirect per WP:ATD makes sense. Keep or merge not as much. At least not to me. If other editors create solid articles, I'll reconsider. For me, the proof is in the pudding. gidonb ( talk) 00:24, 5 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 policy appears to be BLPCRIME and no compelling case that this is a public figure has been made. (Being described as like a bishop but not otherwise covered does not seem to be a compelling case and gained little traction in the discussion) Spartaz Humbug! 22:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Fletcher

Jonathan Fletcher (  | 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 and WP:NBIO. Only decent sources would create an article in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This section of the scope focuses on harmful behaviour and demonstrates evidence of spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. There is also a serious incident involving a sexual act performed in front of someone that has been reported. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals caused harm and many will live with this impact in the long term. SOURCE: [1]

It is "unsourced" negative content that is a BLP concern, not such properly-sourced content. I see a concerted effort to delete properly sourced content about his proven abuses. The parallels to a similar article are interesting, and it is also undergoing whitewashing: John Smyth (barrister). These deletions are improper and reveal an abuse of BLP. We are supposed to document these things if they are mentioned in more than a couple RS, and they certainly are. See WP:Public figure. The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only a torturous reading of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would make someone meet wikipedia's definition of a public figure based on one alleged series of events that is also the sole basis for creating an article. No white washing, just the reality they are neither notable nor notorious Slywriter ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This isn't "alleged", but proven. Even if only alleged, WP:Public figure is about "alleged". This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: If anyone can explain to me how this does not meet GNG, I'd like to hear it. There's multiple significant independent reliable sources.
    As for the content dispute, abuse is not always necessarily a crime, and furthermore WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. Some say they're not a public figure, but, a Church leader who is considered influential by reliable sources and has been reported on in the media long before allegations of abuse, to me, easily meets the criteria of 1) significant influence, 2) widely of concern to the public, 3) can benefit from their position in society, and 4) and is closely related to public interests in society. –– FormalDude talk 17:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as it's found in reliable sources. Therefore, our primary function is inclusionist by nature. We first seek to build and include, not destroy and delete. Content submitted in good faith should be viewed with an eye toward improvement and inclusion, saving deletion as a last resort.
Wikipedia has a legitimate and necessary deletion policy, but that does not mean that all proposals to delete an article, aka an AfD, are legitimate. Therefore, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only one question: "Does this article pass our general notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the only relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, then ask: "Can it be rescued by finding more RS to establish its notability or otherwise satisfy GNG?" If so, then advocate for that before finally !voting Delete.
All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by the editing policy's enjoinment to preserve all content added in good faith. Wikipedia is inclusionist by nature, so editors' first impulse should be to fix, improve, and include. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
GNG is just a presumption, per "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information., and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#CRIM seems to me to advise against an article of this sort. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Firstly, the subject is not a criminal, so WP:CRIME is not technically involved. Subject was a senior churchman who committed misconduct, confirmed by an independent review. However, if we take that guideline and replace "crime" with "misconduct", the second of the points for perpetrators from WP:CRIME is met: The motivation for the crime/misconduct or the execution of the crime/misconduct is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
I would suggest a clergyman being "engaged in a range of harmful behaviours that have been experienced by a number of people, through demonstrative accounts including a serious sexual act performed in front of another person, spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, and forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths" (extract from the independent review, p.89) is extremely unusual and noteworthy. Likewise the coverage he received was sustained and significant. Ephesians511 ( talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (declaration of interest - article creator) the subject is a senior churchman (many sources describe him as "highly influential" or an "evangelical pope") who committed a range of harmful / abusive behaviours (physical / emotional / sexual / spiritual) over a prolonged period. I would suggest that is notable. He received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so WP:GNG is met. Ephesians511 ( talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage in the Telegraph and other RS in article suggest he is notable. Agree with FormalDude's explanation. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment my original article was well-referenced and accurately represented the published sources. Some minor BLP concerns were identified, possibly resulting from the misunderstanding that the subject is a criminal, but both before and whilst I was trying to address them, much sourced material was deleted. I agree with Valjean that this was whitewashing. I will continue to try to improve the article whilst the AfD is open, but it is difficult when my edits, made in good-faith and BLP-compliant, keep getting reverted. Ephesians511 ( talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Since you know the sources better, I have a question for you. Does the "naked massages" referred to imply that it's his nakedness that's the problem? One reference to him getting an erection while giving a massage seems to indicate this. (It's normal/common for the one getting the message to be naked, but not for the one giving the massage, except in an erotic situation. Then it's quite normal.) In other references to nakedness it's pretty obvious it's his nakedness that was seen by some as inappropriate. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Hi, interesting question... I didn't spot anything in the review where they discussed why certain physical acts were problematic. They just considered that they were unacceptable, and I don't disagree. The real concerns were Fletcher's overall pattern of bullying and coercive control, which manifested in many different ways, not all of them physical, and that he was able to continue unchecked for many years. This next bit is original research, but my feeling is that, if a clergyman was involved in giving/receiving massages, and nothing else, even if both parties were fully clothed, it would still be regarded as improper. That would apply even if one of the parties wasn't a parishioner or similar - it just wouldn't look right, given the potentially sexual nature of the act. If a parishioner was involved, there's also the unequal power dynamic. The only thing that I could see as being OK is if a clergyman received a therapeutic massage from a professional - there might be a few strange looks, but I don't think it would result in disciplinary action! Ephesians511 ( talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't believe this person is notable outside of the allegations of abuse. This person's prominence also does not satisfy my idea of a public figure to survive a BLPCRIME removal and there are not adequate levels of high quality neutral sources to survive the requirements of WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This opinion piece in Christian Today paints a picture of a very public, very influential clergyman and it outright compares him to C of E bishops, which would be public figures per our existing understandings. Regardless of how much scandal to include or not include, the case is pretty convincing that he has been a long-term public figure, and so the debate should be about what to include, rather than whether to have an article or not. Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    The writer says he's arguably as influential as a CofE bishop, linking to another op-ed he wrote. It was not a statement of fact, it was a single author's statement of opinion, that linked to the author's own opinion for support. If he were actually a public figure there would be some coverage of that before the abuse allegations, and it would be widespread in reliable sources. As it stands, all of the Telegraph sources are by the same author following up on the case, and then niche religious publications after the allegations. The only sources from before the allegations are routine coverage, and an interview with a blogger. In my opinion, that doesn't reach the bar of being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Two thoughts: First, it's entirely normal for a single reporter to cover a story longitudinally. Second, "niche religious publications" are precisely where we should expect to see coverage of a notable/public religious figure. Few get mainstream media coverage, but that doesn't stop us from covering them on the basis of religious RS coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 19:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can sympathise with those who want to keep this article, but BLPCRIME applies here.

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

In this case the subject of the article is the subject of accusations and an internal investigation that upheld those accusations. However he has not been convicted, and there's no way to discuss the inquiry without suggesting that he has committed crimes. While Fletcher apparently had influence within a particular strain of the Church of England, it wasn't significant enough for anyone to write about him in any depth prior to this and he's nowhere near being a public figure.
Ultimately we're left with little more than basic biographical details, some routine mentions in local press and Anglican websites, and a huge elephant in the room that we frustratingly can't touch. That doesn't add to up to the significant coverage that GNG requires. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 02:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Independent Lessons Learned Review (incorporating an Audit of Safeguarding Arrangements) Concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon" (PDF). 23 March 2021. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  • Delete -- Innocent until proved guilty does not apply here, as there has been a ruling by a church court preventing him from ministering as a vicar. However, except that he has been reported in a national newspaper (or its on-line counterpart), there is nothing in the article to make him notable. As he is now 77, it is likely that he will retire and not be heard of again. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- Is there a page about clergy banned from the Church of England that they could be added to? I think that that would be a notable page. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Gusfriend: Possibly Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases#Church of England. –– FormalDude talk 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is sufficient coverage in RS to pass GNG, which is the only relevant question to ask in an AfD. Any other deficiencies or problems are covered by WP:Preserve, which says we should improve, not delete. There are other options than deletion. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per RaiderAspect and Peterkingiron: We DO NOT preserve damaging articles and content against policies and guidelines. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to champion the victims. According to the article lacking a death date, this is a WP:BLP. The relevant policies and guidelines are clear: 1)- The subject has not been convicted, 2)- the notability would rely on accusations, that I imagine would bring in WP:BIO1E as well as WP:BLPCRIME. I presume "clergyman" (parish priest) does not present a presumption of notability by itself. 3)- Even if there was more notability "the statement "Innocent until proved guilty does not apply here", is bewildering. A conviction would follow (I am pretty sure) a verdict of guilty that would present a better argument for inclusion if it received significant coverage. WP:BLP states in the This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. and in the lead; Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies, and We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Even after all that, especially as long as the subject is living, this article would be a smear or some agenda in that direction possible needing lifetime protection or sanctions of some sort. I don't see enough net gain to having this article at this time. -- Otr500 ( talk) 17:52, 6 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 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nevile Gardiner

Nevile Gardiner (  | 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 has no sources, and fails WP:N. Further attempts to find sources only gave a website apparently using Wikipedia as its source. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 14:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is an emblem of the legacy of the wild west conditions under which Wikipedia was built. Although I would argue since we still have not required all articles to go through AfC we have not yet overcome those conditions as much as we would like to think. The article has exist for roughly 18 years, and has been tagged as lacking any sources for roughly 13 years. About half is information connecting him by familial relations to other people who were notable. Even ambassadors are not default notable, but the commercial secretary is almost sure to not be notable, and getting bit by an unidentified insect and dying is not a sign of notability either. I am really shocked how many totally not meeting any inclusion guidelines articles from 2004 there still are. I once avoided participating in discussions on dead people on the view that Wikipedia was too presentist. I still think it is, but that is no reason to keep articles on people from the past that clearly do not even come close to meeting notability. With the popularity of family history research I am in some ways surprised that we do not end up with more articles on non-notable but sourceable deceased people. Although in this case there are no sources presented at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find reliable sources for this article. I don't think being bitten by an insect or having a good diplomatic career enough to satisfy notability requirements. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can find reliable sources but I'm not sure if they're enough for Wikipedia Notability: he got a very brief (22 words) mention on the Obituary page of The Times on the day after his death, there was also an obituary in the Washington Evening Star which is available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1954-05-10/ed-1/seq-15/ There's also an entry in The Foreign Office List and Diplomatic and Consular Year Book but the full text doesn't seem to be available and the snippet doesn't reveal much Piecesofuk ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 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! 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

EDM Arms Windrunner

EDM Arms Windrunner (  | 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. Article created by an WP:SPA, lacks any secondary sources, and I'm unable to find any myself that discuss it in any detail beyond just acknowledging that it exists. Loafiewa ( talk) 12:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I initially thought to recommend move to EDM Arms as I don't think that the Windrunner by itself is sufficiently important / referenced but a page about EDM Arms including their products might get more references but then I discovered that the company itself went bankrupt and doesn't exist any more. "Bill Ritchie sole owner of EDM ARMS passed away November 5, 2016. There are no assets. EDM ARMS 1996-2016" [1] Gusfriend ( talk) 10:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "50 BMG". www.edmarms.com. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
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 12:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Alturaash

Alturaash (  | 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)

Unable to find significant coverage in independent and reliable sources; fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The references are either sponsored articles or passing mentions, which do not count towards notability. The page creator is a WP:ACPERM-gaming WP:SPA. This topic is connected to Asif Kamal, which has been deleted at least twice and salted, and Asif Kamal Foundation, which has also been deleted twice previously. M4DU7 ( talk) 12:30, 28 January 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 12:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sanjeev bista

Sanjeev bista (  | 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-elected politician fails WP:NPOL. As per available References also fails WP:GNG. Ts12rAc talk to me 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Didnt include the correct title, elected official in the indian government not a politician — Preceding unsigned comment added by NePaLi1995 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO. His job confers no automatic notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Regional manager of a public transit company is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, but this features nothing like the depth of substance or sourcing it would take to get him over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 18:01, 31 January 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! 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Protests against Sebastián Piñera

Protests against Sebastián Piñera (  | 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)

Weird fork of 2019–2021 Chilean protests. Not proposing merge, given the lower quality and previous copyvio. MarioGom ( talk) 00:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarioGom ( talk) 00:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. MarioGom ( talk) 00:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Bedivere ( talk) 00:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: First off, the page is structurally disorganized and needs to be re-written entirely if kept. There are few biased remarks in it too. With its notability, as long as there is SIGCOV of the political leader as the main host of the news articles, and it lingers past a few weeks that continue to demonstrate the protests' significance pertaining to the leader in specific - and not the nation, sectors of the government or the government as a whole - there should be no reason to delete or merge to 2019–2021 Chilean protests. One thing to consider is that a main objective of the 2019-2021 Chilean protests is the resignation of the Chilean president, so some of the page's information may be useful to include as a subsection in the Core issues section of 2019–2021 Chilean protests. Multi7001 ( talk) 03:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article is WP:OR not supported by the statements in the article. Attacking Baquedano statue is protest against Piñera? Dentren | Talk 18:59, 29 January 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! 05:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Dhananjay Singh Masoom

Dhananjay Singh Masoom (  | 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)

Notability is not justified by available references. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon ( talk) 05:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete agree with nom - of the first three references the first is a passing mentions and the other two his name doesn not appear at all. Fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren ( talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting page author's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:12, 28 January 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. Consensus is GNG is not met. No objection to draft space incubation should Mir eventually make the Olympics, but should not be restored absent significant, in depth sourcing. Star Mississippi 01:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Tasnim Mir

AfDs for this article:
Tasnim Mir (  | 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:TOOSOON case. The entity is yet not ready for main article. Hence calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is a difference between; already participated in Olympics, being qualified for Olympics and may qualify for Olympics. And she is yet to participate in any top BWF Super Series or BWF Grand Prix. As of now, the entity clearly fails Notability Sports - Badmintion. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and the medals were not in a national championship, only an age-category championship. Geschichte ( talk) 08:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets criteria number one of WP:NBAD as she is the participant at the World Women's team Championships (Uber Cup) in 2021. zoglophie 10:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as obviously TOOSOON and lacking SIGCOV. NSPORT requires GNG be met, so meeting NBAD is irrelevant. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets criteria number one of WP:NBAD as she is the participant at the World Women's team Championships (Uber Cup) in 2021. -- Florentyna ( talk) 15:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Florentyna @ Zoglophie @ Caphadouk NBAD simply predicts which badminton players are likely to meet GNG, and like all sport-specific guidelines under NSPORT it still requires GNG to be met. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep , and please not too much unlinked abbreviations and more details, what is not met. Google: 137.000 results searching for "Tasnim Mir". For comparison: Today created article Cameron Hanekom 674 hits. -- Florentyna ( talk) 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Florentyna, you cannot !vote twice, so you should remove the second !vote. As for the unlinked abbreviations, WP:GNG is the general notability guideline that is required for almost all biographies on Wikipedia. WP:NBAD (which you linked) is on the WP:NSPORT page, the first sentence of which says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. At the top of the page there is a collapsed section with FAQs; 1, 2, and 5 directly state GNG must be met for athletes. I will also note Google hits are not a useful metric for Wikipedia notability and are in fact listed as an argument to avoid in AfD discussions. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:34, 3 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! 05:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Metaphors of Memory

Metaphors of Memory (  | 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:NBOOK. Possible WP:COI. Lack minimum two significant, independent book reviews. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 28 January 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! 05:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Mainland Book Cafe

Mainland Book Cafe (  | 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 - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Reads like an advertisement. Most references are dead and the others are routine coverage Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:59, 28 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jimmy X Rose

Jimmy X Rose (  | 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)

Autobiographical article (judging by the nickname of the user who created the article and wrote all the content in it) for a musician of questionable notability. Zaqq ( talk) 11:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We need to actually enforce the Wikipedia rule against autobiographies. I had a friend who would have made an article on herself if it was not for the rule, because she felt that as an anonymous moderator on a Harry Potter fan fiction site she met notability criteria. I am 100% sure even if she used her real name in that position she would not have met our inclusion criteria, at least not now. Back in 2006 our inclusion criteria were very loose, and if it intersected with pop culture fantasy or science fiction I am not sure we had any limiting criteria in 2006. It is that experience that convinces me we need to be dilligent in enforcing rules against autobiographies, because people often have inflated views of their own importance. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or if anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion, possibly redirect to Make Me Famous. That band gained a little notability, but this one member's music career fizzled after he left them with no reliable and significant coverage of his own works. He later went into a design career, and good for him but that does not justify a biographical article here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 02:25, 31 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Ninomiya

Michael Ninomiya (  | 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:BLPCRIME. An article solely created because the person is alleged (not convicted) to have attempted to murder his son (not actually murder him, as the article claims). Fram ( talk) 09:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with SmokeyJoe's assessment. Papaursa ( talk) 04:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion if a redirect is to be created. There is no need to obfuscate the page history. Neutral otherwise. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 23:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    The subject is not covered at the target, and I don’t think there is a case to add coverage. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    And it's rather irresponsible to keep BLPCRIME violations in the history only because a redirect would exist. There is no need to keep the history either way. Fram ( talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have grave doubts about creating redirects for children who do not actually meet any inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The real subject here is the event, not a biography, but the event isn't notable (let alone the biography) per WP:EVENT, because there's no likelihood of continued coverage, and it seems likely to be a single-cycle topic of media coverage. There's no reason to have this article, and when that is true for a WP:BLPCRIME topic, it means that there is a reason not to have the article. twsabin 22:22, 3 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. Star Mississippi 01:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Prunella Scales (band)

Prunella Scales (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)

After more than a decade no further sources have been found. Sole existing source is very poor (essentially a 1PP blog). Tis time to ask whether this band merits an article on Wikipedia. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because [unsourced since 2009]:

Dressing Up the Idiot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CapnZapp ( talk) 09:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment on the possible suggestion suggested here :-) I checked the Skid Row (American band) article. It contains exactly one reference to the article discussed here, and it uses a rather tenuous source for the mention. (I tagged it) Which is to say: do not link to a page unless it actually mentions what you're redirecting. Skid Row (American band) currently does this, but unless a better source can be found, might not. Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 07:23, 31 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Vaibhav Chaturvedi

Vaibhav Chaturvedi (  | 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)

Unelected politician ,doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Padavalam🌂  ►  09:07, 28 January 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 12:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Tyler Star

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

Seems to lack the necessary notability. Sources are a local radio station they cooperated with to stage an event, and the "California Herald" which doesn't seem like a very reliable source, more a place for amateur journalists to post or repost stuff. I couldn't find better sources online. Fram ( talk) 08:58, 28 January 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 12:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Italian conquest of the Horn of Africa

AfDs for this article:
Italian conquest of the Horn of Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written a mere five days after it was originally deleted ( AfD discussion in 2017) by a user who was globally blocked after doing so. I imagine this was an attempt to circumnavigate the original AfD. This is essentially a redundant content fork of Italian East Africa, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and the Italian invasion of British Somaliland. Sources do not seem to fold all of these things into one big conflict, and the area itself as an Italian territory is covered at Italian East Africa. I recommend SALTing. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:07, 28 January 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! 05:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

∆AIMON

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. WP:GNG is definitely not met (the sources on the article don't seem reliable, and I haven't been able to find any better ones on Google). WP:BAND does not seem to be met to me. You could maybe make an argument that they meet criterion #5 of WP:BAND: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." However, I don't think Artoffact Records counts as a "more important indie label" (based on a quick look through the other bands on their roster), and I don't know that you can say ∆AIMON truly has "two or more albums" with Artoffact (unless you count remix albums or EPs). IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:33, 28 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Narcis Tacau

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

This article was discussed at WP:BLPN#Narcis Tacau. The subject appears to lack independent notability and the article attracts WP:BLPCRIME issues. It's been stubbed; in its prior state, it was borderline eligible for G10 and indeed G10-tagged by Netherzone (the tag was removed by Liz, who took the article to BLPN). Consensus on that noticeboard, which I concur with, is that the article is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Vaticidal prophet 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Please do not delete this article – I have added additional detail as well as links to a number of articles about Narcis Tacau from national and international media sources. He has independent notability and this article is now clearly appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please remove this article from the AFD list. MMc ( talk) 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    If he is not notable except for being accused of a crime, then the article violates WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete violates WP:BLPCRIME and public figure is an extraordinary exception which they do not meet. There is neither evidence they meet the definition on-wiki nor are a multitude of sources covering the matter. Slywriter ( talk) 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - originally written like an attack page - G10; and does not seem to meet notability criteria for a biographic article. Netherzone ( talk) 01:06, 3 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. WP:SNOW keep per numerous !votes and clearly demonstrated notability. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

How to Date Men When You Hate Men

How to Date Men When You Hate Men (  | 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:NBOOKS. Minimum two non-trivial coverage are missing which must appear in sources that are independent of the book itself. - Hatchens ( talk) 01:36, 28 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I8 (company)

I8 (company) (  | 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)

Coverage is not significant per WP:NCORP, all references are re-hashing the same single story about their partnership with the Everton FC. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 01:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_28&oldid=1070328567"