From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 09 April 11 >
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. ✗ plicit 02:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hannah Bayman

Hannah Bayman (  | talk | history | 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 news presenter. Appears to be largely a resume, LinkedIn post or the like. No sources found Oaktree b ( talk) 23:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and News media. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    No sources found? BBC, Chronicle Live, Hexham Courant, Northern Echo are all valid sources. J97736 ( talk) 17:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article for Hannah Bayman should not be deleted. it has valid sources and she is a notable broadcaster. J97736 ( talk) 20:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and England. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Someone added sources yesterday. BBC articles are not independent (her employer). Other articles are mostly insignificant. "Hannah Bayman was spotted in public yesterday. Just thought you would want to know!" From this I can conclude that she is well known to a select audience, but these sources don't do much for the rest of us. BruceThomson ( talk) 02:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are either promo or primary (or both). Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed more promo. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability: ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Article lacks Reliable Sources, fails Wp:GNG. Alex-h ( talk) 11:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Overall fails WP:GNG and secondary sources are missing NP83 ( talk) 20:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Mayolee

Mayolee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional. Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show IS RS have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Comments Reference
Promo 1. Rapheal (2023-01-06). "I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Mention, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Lari-Williams, Seun (2022-11-03). "Way Maker, Miracle Worker, and Beatmakers: Are Music Producers Entitled to Royalties?". The IP Press. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
music video WAY MAKER - OFFICIAL VIDEO, retrieved 2023-04-02
award nominations 4. ^ "Sinach's Way Maker Gets Multiple Dove Award Nominations – THISDAYLIVE". www.thisdaylive.com. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
dup promo ref 5. ^ Rapheal (2023-01-06). "I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Review, work might be notable, but does not support N for BLP 6. ^ "In Awolowo, Mayolee blends creativity and skill". The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News. 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
About us page National Theatre, Nigeria, Iganmu, Surulere, Lagos". 0202-06-03. Retrieved 2023-04-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Failed V, unable to locate 8. ^ Mayolee biography by Michael Oluwole
dup promo ref 9. ^ Rapheal (2023-01-06). "I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02.

BEFORE showed promo, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

Created by User:Hilspress possibly connected to this media company [1]. Image metadata suggests the author has a connection to subject. [2]

 //  Timothy ::  talk  20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I believe the page is suitable for publication, hence should be considered an old AFD. First, the article is written in a third party tone, easily written in a clear language for all readers, and well referenced with information directly connected to the subject. The deletion tag should be lifted. The author described that he is the owner of the image data possibly to have been made from the subject's portrait which does not violates copyrights neither proves that he is connected to the subject. Thank you. Orring ( talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For the reasons mentioned in the very detailed nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 15:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing for GNG as explained in the chart. Filming a music video doesn't make one notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The subject doesn't appear to be notable at this time. He is simply known for being the producer of "Way Maker" and attempting to sue the primary artist for royalties. Although the article cited "12" references, several of the references are a repeat of each other. The subject's debut album only got a single review in reliable coverage. In a few years time, he may become notable if he releases more music and get some accolades. I personally think it is WP:TOOSOON for him to have a stand-alone article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Tekken characters. ✗ plicit 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Kunimitsu (Tekken)

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

Just like Dr. Bosconovitch and Bryan Fury, this also fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Bosconovitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Fury — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

William Rollason

William Rollason (  | talk | history | 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 businessman. No evidence of significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to List of Tekken characters. ✗ plicit 02:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Bryan Fury

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

Another minor character besides Dr. Bosconovitch fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Bosconovitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunimitsu (Tekken) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMTQ0jsXTo
  2. ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAw5FPy5ufo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Tekken characters. ✗ plicit 23:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Dr. Bosconovitch

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

Minor character fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Fury and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunimitsu (Tekken) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Gas leak phone call scam

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

Relatively minor news story; no calls like this have been reported in reliable sources since the initial wave of calls in 2016 wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Arizona, California, Indiana, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A perusal of the deletion policy (DP) suggests that the only rationale to which the nominator might've been referring was number eight, failing the notability guideline's nutshell requirement of "over a period of time", and for me, 10.29 weeks is sufficient. I recommend keeping the article, unless other DP reasons suggest otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Soft keep: per Fourthords. I'd maybe support if there was a more clear reason for deletion. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure what makes this more notable than any other similar incident that it even warrants an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    With regards to the policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'm not sure which of the four points you're invoking. Are you saying this article is (1) serving as original reporting, (2) routine news coverage of "announcements, events, sports, or celebrities", (3) unduly biographical, or (4) "celebrity gossip and diary" material? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    From NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion"  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm unsure why you're replying on behalf of Beemer69. Might you have intended to include this in your input at the bottom of the page? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Six prank phone calls = WP:NOTNEWS; it also fails WP:NCRIME, "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The above fails WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:LASTING.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus and one is unlikely to form while their deaths are literally in the news. Suggest revisiting this when some time has passed and/or a potential merger target as it is unlikely to survice as a standalone once the initial wave of coverage has passed. Star Mississippi 14:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee

Murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, this is a straight news article, with a single source likewise to a single news article. There is zero chance that a shooting that happened three days ago has attracted significant, sustained coveraged to show it to be a notable event. A 15 year old Palestinian was killed today, that is likewise a news article, not an encyclopedia article. This is already covered at Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_in_2023#7_April, but this stand alone article fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS nableezy - 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Nableezy 22:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't even find much news of it now, beyond mentioning it happened. Likely nothing will come of it, just another shooting that happens all too often in that part of the world. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, pr nominator. Sad to say, but killings in Israel/Palestine is an (almost) everyday occurrence, and wp is WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra ( talk) 23:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No different to many unfortunate deaths in the region. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Lard Almighty ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because this is a high-profile triple murder of civilians which is widely covered by the MSM in Israel & the UK. This is of a similar notability level to many of our articles about militant attacks in Israel & the West Bank in the 2020s. Like many articles it's a stub to start with, but it can be greatly improved. The Hebrew article is significantly longer & has several refs. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 08:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Most articles about militant attacks deal with established notable events or the killings of notable people. These are non-notable people who sadly got caught up in a shooting. It will be around for the current news cycle. I doubt there will be enduring coverage. If there is and it becomes a notable event later it can be re-created, but for now it's just news and too soon. Lard Almighty ( talk) 08:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Many are, like this one, started as stubs hours or days after the event, have a similiar level of media coverage & are about attacks against civilians which have single figure death tolls. This being nominated very quickly when none of the others were makes no sense. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 09:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
As I say, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a policy argument. Lard Almighty ( talk) 09:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Jim Michael 2. Tombah ( talk) 08:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. High-profile murder of three members of the same family. Plenty of media coverage worldwide. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not murder. Death by firearm. We don't know why or who or how. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a horrific terrorist attack in which two sisters and her mother were murdered. This could have serious repercusions for the security situation. Reported by mainstream sources has a big deal in Israel, no reason to supress. And if we talk about comparisons, this article in which two random Palestinian gunmen were killed in Nablus doesn't seem particularly relevant. Dovidroth ( talk) 11:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That should be deleted as well. re This could have, see WP:CRYSTAL. This is a news article, and it will pass in the next news cycle like all other news articles. nableezy - 22:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not a question of "supressing" or indeed how horrific the attack was. It's a question of whether this article meets Wikipedia policy. So far I have seen no compelling policy arguments for inclusion at this time. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. Lard Almighty ( talk) 11:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    We don't know it's terrorism, an accident or jusst a random shooting. There is no identified gunman/group/rogue shooter. "Girls get shot" isn't news we need in wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
How could it be an accident? Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Suppression suggests pushing an agenda. We aren't here to help the "good guys". Leave agendas out of the discussion. If people in media deem it newsworthy, we'll review the sources and decide. People get shot all the time there, they all aren't notable. That's the issue. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article now has six references from well-known news organizations in three countries. The death toll is higher than several other recent attacks which do have Wikipedia pages (see List of terrorist incidents in 2023), and the article has more and more diverse references than several of those articles, which begs the question of why someone would want to delete this page while leaving those. Ar2332 ( talk) 12:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    * Comment: If it's kept it should be renamed and focused on the attack, as those other articles are. They are about notable events, not the deaths of otherwise non-notable individuals. And again, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a policy argument. Lard Almighty ( talk) 12:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The media coverage is on the victims. It's not known who the gunman is & no group has claimed responsibility. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 13:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Just more reasons why it's WP:TOOSOON. There is no rush to get articles about events onto Wikipedia. It is often best to wait a while until things settle down after the initial understandable emotional reactions and we can have a better idea of what the encyclopaedic facts are. Lard Almighty ( talk) 14:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • None of the keep votes address that this is a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Not a single one of them. Beyond that, we dont title articles "Murder of" absent a conviction of murder. But if this is kept we can start making articles for every Palestinian murdered by an Israeli settler or soldier if you like. Unreal the level of myopic argument here. nableezy - 14:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It's of similar notability as most of the attacks in recent years in Israel & the West Bank which have WP articles. This is a high-profile triple murder which is clearly far more notable than the vast majority of the ordinary killings of one person at a time. We have many articles about single & multiple murders in Israel & the West Bank, including some which include the victims' names. We have articles about unsolved murders elsewhere which have murder in their titles, including Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 15:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
That led to a siege of an embassy and the severing of diplomatic relations. This has led to what, a Wikipedia article? nableezy - 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Michael 2 again, your argument boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The AfD process is not about counting votes, it's about the strength of the arguments made for and against deletion. I would be happy to change my mind on this but I would need to see solid policy-based arguments for inclusion to counter the ones I and others have made. Lard Almighty ( talk) 15:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
That's because it isn't. Which section of NOTNEWS do you think it violates? I'm assuming #2, but I don't think the worldwide coverage these killings have garnered violates that at all. It is merely your opinion that it does, not "blatant" in any way. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Of course it is, everything generates worldwide coverage. The raids on al-Aqsa have generated worldwide coverage, eg [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The killing of the Palestinian boy yesterday has spawned worldwide coverage, eg [8], [9], [10]. Every act of violence in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict generates coverage. But they are given their context, meaning within said long-running conflict, by including them in articles like Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_in_2023. We only have this issue with Israeli victims of Palestinian violence, in which one creates an article in the hours and days after without having the faintest idea of whether or not this act of violence will have any enduring impact. These all fail WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, and if one were to even attempt to create articles on each of the 100x Palestinians killed compared to Israelis killed you would see how short-sighted that view that "worldwide coverage" means enduring notability is. Seriously, go to the timeline article. Imagine an article for every "Israeli forces killed" ... . nableezy - 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
2023 Tel Aviv car-ramming was created the day after it happened; none of its victims were Israelis. As I've said, this high-profile triple murder is far more notable than the vast majority of single killings. Obviously the vast majority of them shouldn't have articles. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Which should likewise be deleted. But whatever, if this is kept Ill create an article for every act of Israeli violence. Idk how much time Id have for my job or life if I do that though, since there are, as youll see at the timeline article, a lot of those. But in what world is this high-profile? I just showed how Israeli soldiers killing a Palestinian teenage boy generated as much coverage as this. Is that high profile too? nableezy - 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Anyone is welcome to nominate it for deletion, but it's also notable enough for an article. You know that the vast majority of the many single killings don't have anywhere near the media coverage or notability of this triple murder. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I've explained my reasoning in several of my comments above. We don't know yet whether this event will have enduring coverage or just be one of many atrocities that have happened over the decades. Sometimes it is obvious (e.g. the September 11 attacks) but this is not one of them. This event should certainly be included in the Timeline article but right now I don't think it merits a standalone article. It could in the future if it becomes an iconic or otherwise important event in the course of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Barring that it belongs in the timeline with all the others. Lard Almighty ( talk) 16:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Else if this event is kept as an article, then merge into Draft talk:2023 Hamra junction shooting which was created prior (and will go through vetting pre-publish) and at least has a sensible title. This rush to create articles for every single frequently non notable event is very tiresome, we can't prevent it because someone will put such up within hours of something occurring and frequently before all the facts are in. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree that they should be merged; I first suggested it. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Covered the world over. Significant coverage in UK and Israeli media. Several Israeli leaders, up to the Prime Minister, have spoken up about this atrocious murder. Has significant coverage. ---Lilach5 ( לילך5) discuss 19:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • On-the-fence-keep/Wait International, relatively in-depth coverage in a variety of reliable sources. The lasting effect/duration of coverage are hard to determine at the moment. The perpetrators still haven't been caught and no party has explicitly claimed responsibility. The shooting is part of recent tensions that include other attacks with fatalities. In this case, thousands of mourners attended the funeral, top Israeli politicians commented on the shooting (Israeli President, Prime Minister, opposition leader...), and the husband/father of the deceased has started a significant social media campaign (#DeesDay).
While we are working on an encyclopedia and are not here to right great wrongs, there is definitely a systemic bias that must be addressed somehow, considering we have these deletion discussions very often due to the frequency of violence in Israel/Palestine. Media coverage of killings of Israelis by Palestinians tends to receive more attention than killings of Palestinians by Israelis. There are a few potential reasons for this, including the fact that Israelis have better access to international media outlets, while Palestinian media outlets are often less well-resourced and less widely-read. Incidents involving Israeli victims may be seen as more "newsworthy" due to the perception that Israelis are more closely connected to Western countries and values (the victims are often dual citizens, which contributes to the international coverage, such as in this case). Wikipedia's policy of requiring significant international coverage can result in an overemphasis on topics regarding Israelis, to the detriment of those regarding Palestinians. The media's emphasis on Israeli victims perpetuates a narrative of Israeli victimhood and Palestinian aggression, while downplaying or ignoring the experiences of Palestinians who suffer under settlement expansion and unwarranted violence. We must ensure that Wikipedia is a more comprehensive and representative resource for people seeking information about this complex and multifaceted conflict, which is why articles like Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 (39 kB of readable prose) require a concerted effort from all invested editors. Mooonswimmer 01:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree that the 2023 timeline needs more editors. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I didn't know of that draft when I created this article. Had it been in mainspace, I probably would've been editing that instead. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I would be happy to see this merged into the draft until it is ready for mainspace. Lard Almighty ( talk) 09:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
On the contrary, this article is more encyclopedia (except for its title) Ar2332 ( talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Do you not even understand what the nominator's rationale was? Using your logic here, every one of the dozens of shootings on the Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 would pass the GNG. What makes this shooting any different from the hundreds that go in Israel/Palestine every year? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It's different from the large majority in that it's a triple murder of civilians. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant and sustained international media, [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. This is not a routine fight with Palestinian militants with some casualties, but rather a terror attack against innocent civilians with the world media covering it. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 10:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, This sort of events happen almost every week in that area and is not notable. Alex-h ( talk) 11:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not true. This is the second highest fatality attack this year, after 2023 Neve Yaakov shooting. This attack has received sustained significant media attention, and it doesn't not happen every week. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 12:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    We don't know yet if the coverage is sustained. That's the point. It has already disappeared from the headlines in the UK. People die in attacks on a weekly basis in the region. Look at the timeline article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source or a collection of articles that people think are important from their own particular perspectives. It has articles about significant events and people etc. Being tragic does not necessarily make an event significant. A burst of media coverage does not necessarily make an event significant. What makes an event significant is its lasting broader impact. It is too soon to know whether these killings will have a broader lasting impact on the conflict or the region. Lard Almighty ( talk) 12:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or rather I'll support the deletion of both the articles including this one and April 2023 Nablus incursion. Pg 6475 TM 05:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Other articles are not the scope here, and this tit-for-tat WP:WAX logic has no place here. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agreed. Although I have to point out that this also appears to be the basis of the logic of several of the delete votes (and, indeed, the original nomination). "Why have we got an article on these killings when we haven't got an article about the killing of that Palestinian?" Just as bad. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't mean to say that. For the conflict as a whole, many articles are non-notable. Apologies if my statement meant as something else. Pg 6475 TM 12:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree @ Necrothesp -- Pg 6475 TM 12:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, the argument is by creating these articles outside of the larger events that have some actual sustained coverage over the course of months and years, that you remove them from their context, in this case an escalation of violence over the last few weeks stemming from several confrontations in Jerusalem. The timeline article, which covers this killing already, is the place to have an actual encyclopedic recounting of the events of the year. Not just skew the overall coverage to Palestinians are violent and kill Israelis. Which is also the effect of having largely the opposite balance in articles on violence to actual victims of violence in the real world conflict. But yes, that incursion article should be deleted too. These are minor events that are not even going to be discussed in any serious way in a few weeks. nableezy - 06:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Casualties in this conflict are disproportionately militants, soldiers & police. Attacks against civilians causing multiple deaths are more likely to be notable enough for articles. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
That is not true at all. See here where you will see Palestinian civilian casualties, every single year, dwarfs militant or Israeli military or civilian deaths. So far in 2023, OCHA has 88 Palestinian civilian deaths, 16 militants, and 14 Israeli civilian deaths. Guess how many of the 14 we cover in their own article? All of them. nableezy - 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I mean in comparison to their populations, not the numbers of each. Militants & soldiers have significantly higher death & injury rates than civilians do. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 17:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Again, not true. Palestinian civilian deaths dwarf Palestinian militant deaths. And Israeli deaths of any kind. What you are demonstrating is that only Israeli civilians are deemed worthy of consideration here. Palestinian civilians? Nah, not so much. nableezy - 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It is true in terms of death/injury rates rather than numbers of them. The number of civilians is multiple times higher than the number of militants & soldiers. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 08:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
My guy, the soldier death rate for Israel approaches 0. And that is missing the entire point, that we cover all Israeli civilian deaths extensively and do not cover Palestinian civilian deaths at all. nableezy - 01:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT, WP:GNG, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Experience from other AFDs is that after the first exposure – ongoing, as impressive as pointed out above, and already making this event notable – violent events of this type keep receiving significant coverage in books that describe the history of an era. There seem to be some issues with the article, for example, the names of three victims are in the title. That's on the high end. That said, delving now into the correct name is pointless as the name could change after the merger with the earlier draft article. Whether the name of the AfDd is really better can be examined in a later rename discussion, if and when. gidonb ( talk) 01:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Aoidh ( talk) 03:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdoulaye Ndiaye (footballer)

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

Another contested redirect with zero independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Senegal. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I found [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], and [46], among many many more French sources. Clearly signicaint figure in Senegalese and French league football with young ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2, both o which have a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG per above. Proper before wasn't done.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 19:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. The first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article. Tikgalsen.com is a blog and sc-bastia.corsica is SC Bastia's official website. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The Tikgalsen.com source is originally from [47], which is not a blog. Even though the first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article the corsematin.com article is valid. Besides those three sources, there is also [48], [49], [50], [51], and [52] among many more French sources. Clearly topic of interest with an ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2, both of which have a lot of media coverage. 'Article needs improvement, not deletion. Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one. (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. No sources in article are IS RS SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources above are promo and mentions, nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS sources. None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV, just ROUTINE sports stories, promo, etc. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). //  Timothy ::  talk  14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Wiwsport is very good. I'm not sure if any of the others are good enough. This is a borderline case imho. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That would be the best source, but I think the above is an interview with the subject with some background commentary. Doesn't seem to be an IS and uses promo language.  //  Timothy ::  talk  16:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Wiwsport entry is actually this Corse-Matin article. It certainly counts towards the GNG, but I'll have to see if there is anything else. Jogurney ( talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Responding to TimothyBlue, Firstly, your most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever). Secondly, the sources do have secondary coverage, Thirdly, every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" ( Wikipedia:Wikilawyering) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place... the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual article about a clear topic of interest, there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question). Lastly, Ndiaye has an ongoing career as a important figure in a team in the French Ligue 2, a league that receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I think there is just enough independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. This Corse-Matin article contains a good amount of independent reporting aside from the Q&A interview. Similarly, this Africanews article contains useful independent reporting aside from the Q&A. There are a many other articles that don't go in-depth by themselves such as the Le Progrès piece, but together they add a little more to what is in these two. Jogurney ( talk) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I agree with Jogurney. This passes GNG by skin of teeth Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Aoidh ( talk) 03:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Francesco Giorgi (former assistant at the European Parliament)

Francesco Giorgi (former assistant at the European Parliament) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absent the corruption charges, no notability to this individual. Delete as per WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. Onel5969 TT me 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I've struck my "Redirect" and moved to Merge per note below from Queenofboston pointing out that there's information that would definitely benefit the redirect target. Nomader ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This individual is key in the set up on an influence scheme. This is evidenced well beyond the criminal charges in Belgium, as his family members were involved in setting up another structure in Italy allegedly to channel funds. His actions and background to the extend that they are explained by established media outlet are relevant. If this page is deleted, readers will not be able to find a reliable background on this individual, especially as there is a lot of less reliable sources available on the internet,this page distilled the information only from reliable sources. The coverage of this individual in reliable sources is ample and goes beyond the criminal charges, he is discussed in many articles still being written, for example on 29 March 2023. [1] Queenofboston ( talk) 08:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Instead of a redirect then, would a merge of the relevant information still not be appropriate? They're searching for information on him based on the corruption scandal, and the entire page as it stands is currently all information about his involvement in said scandal. All of that would be helpful context for readers of the Qatar corruption scandal at the main page, and a redirect target from his name could direct people right to the information. It wouldn't be putting the article at WP:TOOLONG either, and he is clearly only currently notable for this one incident (unlike Kaili, for instance). Nomader ( talk) 14:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:SINGLEEVENT says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This appears to be the case here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's worth mentioning that the example provided there is literally assassins of major political leaders like Gavrilo Princip, who killed the Archduke Ferdinand and started WWI, while George Holliday who videotaped the Rodney King incident is relegated to a mention in the event's article. If Giorgi had a more notable career or had been involved in one more incident or thing, then a redirect or merge wouldn't make sense here, but he clearly doesn't reach Princip levels of notoriety and feels more at a Holliday level. Wikipedia would be better served by containing his background information at the main article. Nomader ( talk) 14:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    In terms of relative involvement, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's involvement in 09/11 would have seemed a better analogy, than someone who made a 9 minute video and then got it published. Like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Giorgi spent many years as part of a conspiracy that led to the notable event (though the arrests of Giorgi and the other conspirators was a lot less notable than 09/11).-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. This article is five paragraphs long, doesn't even indicate what makes the subject notable until the third paragraph, and then the rest of the article doesn't make much sense if (like me) one hadn't heard of the Qatargate scandal before. Contrary to the claim above that "The coverage of this individual in reliable sources is ample and goes beyond the criminal charges, he is discussed in many articles still being written, for example on 29 March 2023", the cited article only mentions Giorgi in one sentence in the 12th paragraph, and in the context of his being involved in this scandal. If this article is kept, I recommend changing the title to Francesco Giorgi (Qatargate), a disambiguation classifier similar to, for example, David Young (Watergate). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge condensed sourced contentt to Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament#Francesco Giorgi. This is a WP:BIO1E and tehre is a good target for a redirect.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discounting the nom's rationale as they are a block-evading sockpuppet. Aoidh ( talk) 03:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Bartholomew Cubbins

Bartholomew Cubbins (  | talk | history | 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 character Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck ( talk) 20:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Mascherato

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

Spamvert for non-notable musical, written by its composer/lyricist. Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Largely PROMO, no reviews of the production found. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not a notable musical -- it has never been produced, except in a workshop, and not a notable concept album -- it neither charted nor won any major awards. If it ever goes to the West End, we can write an article about it then. This is clearly WP:PROMO.-- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

IFanboy

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

Procedural nomination after procedural deprodding and erroneous placement of a previous AfD from 2012 on the log. Rationale for the prod by @ BoomboxTestarossa:: Advertising concerns and other issues unaddressed for nearly four years – dudhhr  talk  contribs (he/they) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Advertising concerns and other issues unaddressed for nearly four years. First couple of pages of Google results seem to be connected to the article. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 19:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Naruto characters. Aoidh ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Boruto characters

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

Unsourced article. Also, most of the characters listed here are already included in the List of Naruto characters article. Xexerss ( talk) 19:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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 23:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Aidan White (journalist)

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

I'm not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

VKC Footwear

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

Insignificant company. JJLiu112 ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Article's history reveals it used to be even more of a blatant advertisement. Has been nominated numerous times for speedy delete. JJLiu112 ( talk) 17:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to DeGol Field. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Pine Bowl (stadium)

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

Unsourced stub, no indication that this meets WP:GNG. 162 etc. ( talk) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge with DeGol Field rather than redirect to the football team. The new stadium is/was called Pine Bowl Stadium when built and is "located on the site of the former Pine Bowl". PK-WIKI ( talk) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I am fine with this as a merge/redirect target as well. Frank Anchor 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Makes sense to me as well. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dependency graph. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Determinancy diagramming

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

Content fork of Dependency graph. FranklinOfNull ( talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Glossary of video game terms. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Unlockable (gaming)

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

Per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. We have Glossary of video game terminology for stuff like this, which isn't independently notable. The main problem is that unlockable in a gaming sense doesn't really mean anything different than it does in normal usage. It's something you can unlock. Everything else is merely an attempt to give examples. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOTDICT. The glossary article's function is for articles exactly like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOTDICT. This is more appropriate for a glossary since Wikipedia doesn't do short dictionary definition articles. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. This article struck me as silly when I merged in content from another article that was even more specific, but I figured there'd be some resistance to merging it. I guess times have changed since 2013, when it was almost impossible to get anything deleted on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to glossary article per above.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. A lot of the content are examples, detailing their implementation in particular games and trivia-like content. But we don't really want or need that. The glossary article can work for that. SWinxy ( talk) 23:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was deleted via WP:CSD. (non-admin closure)   ArcAngel   (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Azam Wattoo

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

Contested draftify. Article was then copied and pasted back to mainspace so a BLP PROD was applied. This was removed by the article creator without addressing the issue that this is a BLP with no sources present. In my own searches I can only find TikTok and Facebook which are not WP:RS. Despite the sentence Mr.wattoo is also famliar as political figure I can find no evidence of him passing WP:NPOL. Aside from that, the only other claim to notability is completing his law degree, which is a great achievement but not one that means you need a Wikipedia article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Fair point. I've tagged it for A7 accordingly. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Marcus Younis

Marcus Younis (  | talk | history | 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 footballer. None of the sources cited meets the WP:GNG standard, and a search finds only social media accounts, routine match reports and stats. Was previously draftified and declined at AfC several times, but the author insists on publishing, so next stop AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails "WP:NFOOTY" According to WP:NFOOTBALL, a player is considered notable if they have participated in a fully professional league. While the article states that Younis made one appearance for Western Sydney Wanderers in the A-League, a single appearance might not be sufficient to establish notability. QuantumRealm ( meow • pawtrack) 13:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    In any case, NFOOTY no longer applies, players must now meet GNG. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I appreciate you pointing this out to me! My apologies for not being aware of the latest changes in the guidelines. Now that I know WP:NFOOTY doesn't apply and players need to meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), I'll definitely keep that in mind for my future contributions to Wikipedia. If you have any more tips or insights, I'd be grateful if you could share them with me. Thanks a lot! QuantumRealm ( meow • pawtrack) 16:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable footballer who fails GNG and would have failed the old NFOOTY guidelines. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Football Talent Scout is written by a guest account so clearly is not WP:RS by any standard. The only other stuff that I can find are match report coverage like Greek Herald as well as social media and team sites. Nothing addressing him directly and in detail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

La Quiete

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

No refs on the page, very few meaningful edits for many years. I see a few reviews in sources that do not seem to be RS (and/or may not be independent of the subject). It seems quite difficult to search for the name in Italian media, so there may well be non-English sources that show notability. JMWt ( talk) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. JMWt ( talk) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - They have some minor media coverage, but it tends to be brief release announcements or, in one case, a "lost album" retrospective by a genre expert ( [54]). Unfortunately, that does not add up to the significant coverage that is needed here, and otherwise the band is only visible in the usual streaming and directory services. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Indigenous Albuquerque. While several !voters argued that the subject could find notability as an author through their book (and perhaps as an expert in their field), the arguments that a single book with several reviews does not meet AUTHOR or NPROF found more policy-based support, especially in the absence of GNG establishing coverage. A (selective) merge will allow content and history to be preserved, should her notability change in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Myla Vicenti Carpio

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

With an h-Index of 9, and no positions that qualify, fails WP:NSCHOLAR, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Mexico. TJMSmith ( talk) 13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Citation record [55] is on a good trajectory but not yet strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1. She has one book, for which I found five published reviews ( [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]); if we had that many reviews for two authored books I'd think this a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR, but one book isn't enough. (The book could be notable itself, though.) The "awards and achievements" listed in the article are definitely not enough for notability through that, let alone the big unsourced pile of committee service assignments. And we have no in-depth sourcing about her independent of her and her employer that could be used to pass WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Redirecting to the new article on her book would also be ok. As I said above, I think the book may pass WP:GNG, but if all of our in-depth sourcing related to Carpio is for that one book, then she doesn't pass WP:BIO1E and a redirect is a good choice. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: one of her books, Indigenous Albuquerque now has an article.
  • Keep. She is listed on the Arizona Board of Regents website [61], as well as being the author of a notable book. Just a generally relevant career per her article. BhamBoi ( talk) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I found one more scholarly review for Indigenous Albuquerque here BhamBoi ( talk) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
      Being listed as a member of the faculty of a university is in no way a pass of any notability criterion. It does not help to pass WP:PROF, because it is true of all university faculty rather than being one of the achievements that we use to distinguish the notable ones from the rest. And it does not help to pass WP:GNG, because it is neither in-depth coverage nor independent. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep due to pass of WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, author of a well known piece of work, her book Indigenous Albuquerque. How well known it is is up for debate, but with many academic sources reviewing it (as per my searches on Wikipedia Library), it's well known enough for me to !vote keep, while still weak due to my perception that not everyone will support my logic, despite the criterion clearly allowing it for one work, I know some people prefer there to be two, and some prefer the book to be very well known, and I respect those preferences, even though I don't agree with them. CT55555( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hi CT55555! The key is the work. Yes, if she had written Gone With the Wind, that is both significant and well-known. As would be any Pulitzer or Nobel prize winning work. The book, while it did receive some press is neither significant, nor well-known. I think that's the main difference for authors with only one notable work. Onel5969 TT me 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just a small point of clarification, the criterion says "significant or well-known" not "significant and well-known". I do see others interpreting the guidance as having a higher bar than how I see it, but I think my interpretation of it is valid and reasonable. My assessment that it is "well-known" is about the level of academic interest rather than media reporting. I didn't see much news about it. CT55555( talk) 22:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Point taken about the and vs. or. And I would say that the book is rarely cited, so academic interest is low, although it has a few reviews. As always, though, a pleasure discussing stuff with you. Onel5969 TT me 01:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The very large amount of scholoraly reviews indicates to me that this is a ‘significant’ work: on top of the ones already cited in the article, I found four others in academic journals. BhamBoi ( talk) 20:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes NAUTHOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 09:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Author, public speaker, educator, well-cited and influential in the field of American Indian studies. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
  • Keep Notable author and academic.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 17:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect. Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon and WP:Author. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. The multiple independent book reviews in several journals that are cited in the wiki article on her book Indigenous Albuquerque are enough evidence to show the subject meets that notability indication in the NAUTHOR policy. "Well-known" is a subjective measure, and so we generally interpret that policy at AFD to mean that it if we have multiple independent publications in RS reviewing a work than it is "well-known" and the author is notable. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, American Indian studies is a smaller field. The general public isn't aware of most of what is going on in Native American communities. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
    Generally, if a person is known for only one book, unless the book is very significant, we do an article on the book rather than the person.-- Jahaza ( talk) 23:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Since the article was improved we've had 6 keep arguments and one delete. I'm surprised this was relisted. CT55555( talk) 14:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per others Starship 24 ( talk) 16:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:SOCKSTRIKE — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - due to notable works Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) ( talk) 19:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Indigenous Albuquerque unless there's a second work with reviews or SIGCOV directly about her. Jahaza ( talk) 23:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep author of a notable book and recipient of university-wide awards. Jaireeodell ( talk) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a brief summary (~one paragraph) of the article to a new "About the author" section on Indigenous Albuquerque. Fails GNG, BIO and BLP, but there is a nice home for a concise summary of the information at the target. Brief sourced information will be preserved and the target article will be improved with an About the author section. There are not sources to support a BLP or pass GNG or NAUTHOR. NAUTHOR states "significant or well-known work or collective body of work"; Indigenous Albuquerque however notable, is not a well known work and there is no RS showing it has had a significant impact on the subjects field.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment If someone presents multiple RS showing that this indivdual's work has had a SIGNIFICANT impact on their field, I will glady change my !vote based on NAUTHOR#3.
I've created Catherine Allgor and Edith B. Gelles as well as numerous book articles User:TimothyBlue#New Articles Created, so I've thought about the author article vs work article (or both) issue a bit. My opinion, based on BLP and NAUTHOR and related guidelines, is that a BLP should only be created when the subject is notable separately from their book (such as through NACADEMIC) or if the subjects body of work is best covered in a single article rather than multiple articles (which is the case the previously mentioned) (please no revenge AfDs).  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - She provided her expertise in her field to Oxford Bibliographies Online, a British online encyclopedia maintained by the Oxford University Press, the largest university press in the world. It's a site that students go to when searching an annotated bibliography on a subject. I think this makes her notable. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 04:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
No one becomes notable just for having written something. Coauthoring an annotated bibliography is a good thing for an academic to do, but it is unremarkable. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively merge to Indigenous Albuquerque for the reasons that Timothy suggested. A single book is very seldom a "body of work" that implies we should cover in depth the whole arc of a person's career. In general and on balance, when there's only one book, it makes more sense to have an article on that book. We can always revisit the question if the situation changes. Currently, the article is full of CV/LinkedIn-style writing that seems to be trying hard to "sell" the subject without having any sense of what actually makes a scholar stand out (hint: being invited to be a panelist isn't it). This does not convey why Vicenti Carpio's work is interesting or why anyone should care. It serves no one and merely makes the corpus of writing on Native American studies marginally more tedious on average. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and selective merge to Indigenous Albuquerque: per WP:TOOSOON. Vicenti Carpio appears to not meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. She can be covered in a section of her notable work, Indigenous Albuquerque. A standalone article can be restored in the future should there be further sigcov or another notable work. TJMSmith ( talk) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion make reasonable points, but given the sources provided, the numerical weight of support behind those sources, and a basic uncertainty about when a source is discussing a season, there is consensus to keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season

1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. Simply listing books, without giving enough information to meet WP:VERIFY, is not proper sourcing. With current sourcing, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

One of the 3 books I have used as a reference, the Rothmans Football Yearbook is now known as The Football Yearbook:
/info/en/?search=The_Football_Yearbook
You will note from the article that the book contains statistical information on the previous season's Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League, as well as selected historical records for each club and all major competitions.
The Book has been published every year since 1970.
Based on the above, I feel that this book would be regarded by any British football(soccer) statistician as a reliable, independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
I would kindly request that you reconsider. Hytrgpzxct ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no issue with the use of books as sourcing, but I do not see any evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The issue was not the use of books, but the lack of detail in those citations, so that they could pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the feedback. I will get a hold of the books and edit the page accordingly. Hytrgpzxct ( talk) 19:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ GiantSnowman: The article has now been expanded with additional sourcing. Do you still favor deletion? Cbl62 ( talk) 20:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep per new sourcing, but would prefer more non-local papers... Giant Snowman 20:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage for this Scottish First Division professional team just from Newspapers.com's limited collection of Scottish papers, in addition to the books discussing the season: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] etc.. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07   01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the newspaper coverage above is sufficient for establishing that a decent article can be built on this subject Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 14:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:No original research. There is no evidence that the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season itself has been discussed in detail in any of the sources listed in the article or the online newspaper articles listed above. It's hard to assume the many offline refs cover this topic in detail when all we have is a statistical table with no prose. To me this looks like a classic case WP:SYNTH in which coverage of individual games has been spliced together into an article on the entire season. In effect this is original research. What we need is clear evidence of in-depth significant coverage of the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole to demonstrate that the season itself passes WP:SIGCOV; not just merely coverage of individual events within the season. Until we see some textual evidence in a prose section of the article using these offline sources in a way that its clear these offline sources have in-depth coverage of the 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole (ie retrospective comments/quotes/analysis about the entire season) I am not seeing a strong argument for keeping this article. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep In my opinion, significant coverage of the individual events that make up the season, which we do have in this case, are enough. Per WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;. Alvaldi ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:NSEASONS. The article is not about the club, but about the SEASON. None of the sources in the article or above have SIGCOV of the SEASON. Source eval:
  • Stats, no SIGCOV of SEASON :: 1.  "Average Home League Game Attendances". www.fitbastats.com. Retrieved 24 October 2022.
  • Not IS RS :: Ross, David (2001). Everygame-The New Official History of Kilmarnock Football Club.
  • Stats, no SIGCOV of SEASON :: Cairns, Richard (2011). Killie ‘Til I Die-The Players of Kilmarnock Football Club.
  • Yearbook :: Rollin, Jack (1988). Rothmans Football Yearbook 1988-89.
No sources in article are IS RS SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Looking at the links above, it is obvious they have not IS RS SIGCOV about the SEASON, but about the club. //  Timothy ::  talk  13:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In-depth coverage on the events of a season is what makes for a notable season... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Isn't a team season article just a sub-article from a clubs history section? Per WP:SUBARTICLE "Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." and I would think it was logical to split a history of club into several articles, each covering a single season. Alvaldi ( talk) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    There is also to be considered WP:NOSTATS. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    ...which does not apply here as it is not an [e]xcessive listing of unexplained statistics. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thats a point of view. No information on why there was a lack of scoring, who the players in the team were, at what time they were saved from relegation. There are two phrases of prose which come from a main article with also two phrases of prose. For the moment it is mainly an unsourced statistic. What's attendance? The number of minutes the mentioned players played? Maybe then of the number or spectators... oh, also the stadium is not mentioned. Did they even have a stadium, or were they allowed to play at the farmers... Who knows. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just because it doesn't mention the exact location at which the games were played or how many minutes per game each player played (which in my opinion would be making it closer to NOTSTATS) still does not make it an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics." Also, do you seriously not know the meaning of "attendance"? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Another discussion that strengthens my impression that no keep vote should be allowed from the ones who do not expand the article. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 13:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Paradise Chronicle - It takes time, resources, sometimes money and some general studying/knowledge to be able to put together and add to articles. And with articles involving foreign topics or pre-internet topics, you have a much higher hill to climb. And even when people do put the work in, it just takes one person to come along and say, "nope, not good enough". There's also dozens of articles per day that get nominated and probably less than 50-100 people who even ever take part in these discussions because there's little enjoyment or fun to be had out of arguing with people over nonsense. If Kilmarnock was my local team, I could probably find information on this easy by going to the local library. But they aren't, and I can't just go to Scotland to get the resources needed to improve it further. Sadly, the newer notability rules didn't take this kind of stuff into account, so we're going to continue to have tons of issues until something gives in. KatoKungLee ( talk) 14:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    More excuses for no sources, that rejects policy and consensus. Read WP:V, WP:N  //  Timothy ::  talk  14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sources demonstrating notability have been provided... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
No they haven't as articulated several times. WP:BLUDGEONING the process isn't going to help your cause. You actually need to address the substance of the arguments being made against the sourcing through evidence. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete GNG and Notability cant be ignored just because you have sources that mention it in passing. They all talk about a club, not the season Starship 24 ( talk) 16:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
They're all articles discussing the club during that season, which is what is the determiner of notability for season articles. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If the information is about the club, it belongs in the article about the club and shows notability for the club.
Seasons don't inherit notability from their teams; if this were true, every season a notable club played would be notable.
The subject of the article is the season, not the club during the season.  //  Timothy ::  talk  16:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TimothyBlue An article about a season of a club is a sub-article of that clubs history. Moving it into the history section of the clubs article will eventually mean that we will have to split it up to sub-articles due to its size per WP:SUBARTICLE "Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." which logically would be...each season of the club? Alvaldi ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Having a sub article is fine; but the split off topic still has to pass core policies like WP:GNG and WP:No original research. The fact that the season itself is not covered in-depth in any sources presented here or in the article is concerning in regards to both of these policies. . As stated in GNG policy, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The main issue here is this article was created through original research/synthesis; which is something we can't support; even in split off articles. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was not made with original research. We've got several sources listing the schedules and such, and then many more sources discussing the individual games, etc. This is notable and not OR. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Non-independent press releases and season schedule promotions are not significant coverage. We need sources which have in-depth independent coverage of the subject. This means sources with original analysis of the season, an overview of the topic with original insight, and retrospective commentary on the season. Splicing together non-independent press releases, promotions of the season's schedule, and coverage of individual events within the season is essentially OR/SYNTH and does not meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV. The editorial decision to bundle coverage of individual games into articles on seasons doesn't supersede our core policies at WP:No original research and WP:GNG. We can not have a collective article on a sports season without sources that directly cover the entire season with in-depth coverage. With no sources of that kind, we are essentially doing original research/synthesis to build an article and not just merely fleshing out gaps in the coverage of the season through the supplementary use of sources on individual games. It would be like writing an article on the human body by only using sources that address individual organs or cells but never looked at the whole body or the body in larger systems. There does need to be at least a couple sources with independent in-depth coverage of the season as a whole to demonstrate that this isn't original syntheses. We can't just ignore policies because its editorially convenient. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Something like this then? An inseason in-depth independent coverage of the season. Anyway, this is starting to be some Catch-22 situation. We can't have a season article because the sources found are according to some editors about the club, despite covering events of the season, and thus belong in an article about the club. But if we include the information in question in the article about the club it will inevitably become so large so we have to split it per WP:SUBARTICLE. But we can't split the history section into sub-articles of certain time periods of the history of the club because the sources about the events of the season are really about the club and thus they can't be used to source certain time periods/season in the history of the club... Alvaldi ( talk) 17:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that source is sort of half way there because it was written mid-season. But yes, this source is at least about "the season" itself. However, we need a minimum of two sources from the very end of the season which look back at the entire season. If the season is notable as a topic there should be media and academic publications about this particular season after it ended or at its very end. Find two of those and then I think SIGCOV is proved and it would be possible to avoid SYNTH. As for article size... the article currently has practically no prose section so I think you are putting the cart before the horse. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Would an article previewing the season also count towards GNG? Rupples ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It would help in the sense that it would demonstrate some WP:SUSTAINED coverage and could perhaps fill in some details about the planning of the season. However, it would not solve the overall main problem of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH which can only be solved locating sources about the whole season after it has occurred. Sources written about future events are speculative and prone to inaccuracies as real world events often create changes in the planning and execution of events across time. Sources written after an event has occurred are much more likely to be accurate and are essential for verifying content when writing about events. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, Rupples, an article previewing the season would count, as would one from the middle, or the end, or any point in the season, or just regular game coverage would count towards notability. Each of which we have here (except for preview and very end, as far as I can tell). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Explain, 4meter4, where is it said that we need a minimum of two sources from the very end of the season which look back at the entire season and that we need "academic" publications on one season (there's of course not going to be that) for it to be notable? I've never seen that anywhere (in fact, I'm pretty experienced in this type of work and you're the first person I've ever heard say that). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that should be readily obvious. In order for an event to be covered without WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH we need reliable sources written about the event after it has occurred. Writing about an event using only source that happened in the middle of an event or before it has happened, or only using sources which lack an overall big picture coverage of the entire event results in an article built through original research and synthesis. GNG states, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Reasonably under both GNG and No Original Reaaserch policy we need sources which cover the entire season directly and in detail. I think I have said this many times already. Additionaly, without source demonstrating independent analysis or commentary of the the main topic, the overall 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season, the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Much of the "pro-deletion" commentary above appears to be arbitrarily based on the naming of the article. If the article were instead titled "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. team", much of the argument would be moot. Strange, since in other sports, we use the "team" nomenclature. E.g., 1988 Michigan Wolverines football team. The notability determination should not rise or fall because one sport uses the "season" nomenclature and another used the "team" nomenclature. Making the determination on this basis of whether the article title is "season" versus "team" reduces the matter to an absurdity. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
One is an organization, the other is an event. The notability policies are different, and the required sourcing is different. You could make an argument to keep by moving the page to a different title and changing the subject of the article. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Thats bureaucracy at its finest. Alvaldi ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Uh no. Completely changing the topic of an article is a significant change and it matters. It isn’t just a matter of trivial semantics as it’s a fundamental shift on how the article is structured, sourced, and ultimately written about in a hopefully developing/expanding prose section. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not "completely changing the subject of the article" at all. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It would be exactly the same article, i.e. the history of the team for the 1987–1988 season, with the only difference being that we replace "season" with "team" in the title. And that is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Alvaldi ( talk) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Again, no. The article currently has very little information about the “team”. Where are the names of the players, their coaches, etc? A season article about an event, is not the same thing as an article on the sports team/club of a particular season which would be targeted more on the organization and its personnel as the primary topic as opposed to the individual games/events within the season. If we were to retitle it, the article would require a substantial rewrite with different content. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is basically what I call a list article or a compilation article like with various olympic events, statistical lists and sports seasons. These aren't traditional articles. An individual game isn't notable enough on its own unless its a title game, so you compile all of the games together and make an article out of it. The only type of coverage you are getting on various seasons of team is what BeanieFan11 said - a preview before the season or some kind of post-season wrap up, which is going to downright mirror what this article looks like. I believe the coverage is enough and I believe more is out there. KatoKungLee ( talk) 13:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
A published post wrap-up source with some original commentary in reliable RS is exactly the kind of source I've been asking for KatoKungLee. Present two of those and SIGCOV has been met and we can put this to rest. You can't just assert that it exists somewhere and vote keep. Find it and bring it here or better yet put it in the article. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG with sources presented in the article and in the deletion discussion by Alvaldi and BeanieFan. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you please explain your thinking with specific evidence to back up your reasoning? Can you please identify two sources which have in-depth significant coverage (as in original independent analysis/commentary) of the "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season"? Can you also explain how the sources as used follow our policies of WP:No original research/ WP:SYNTH, and how they meet the guidline at WP:SIGCOV in covering the overall main topic?
And you're the one accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@Beaniefan, asking for someone to clarify their position is not bludgeoning. I would like to know what sources with "independent significant coverage" on the "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season" are being used to justify a keep vote per GNG. This is pretty normal query at an AFD discussion. I'm also only asking for only two, so it shouldn't be difficult to copy paste them here so we can all look at them. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4 for sports articles mainly containing statistics, Wikipedia rules do not apply, see WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR, you can argue with policies for days and weeks, a keep and a diminute expansion are enough to override the policies. With the current sourcing and expansion by Cbl62, this article is in a way better state than most other articles containing sports statistics I saw. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I am not really seeing how either of those policies apply here in overruling notability policies like WP:N or content policies like WP:No original research. Both WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR are policies describing what wikipedia isn't and they aren't meant to be used to override notability guidelines or the ethical rules for content creation that undergird the project as a whole. Fundamentally, there are no sources which directly and comprehensively talk about the primary topic of this article: the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season. The article as written here is essentially doing original research as would be done by a professional sports historian. That isn't something we are allowed to do per WP:No original research. If you want to do this kind of work, then do it on a platform that publishes original research content. That isn't wikipedia per WP:FORUM. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Expansion note. The article has now been expanded to include the full roster as well as a sprinkling of the sources covering the season. That should be sufficient, as AfD is not intended to determine whether an article has all of the information one might hope to see if it were being submitted for "Good Article" status. The issue here is simply whether SIGCOV exists in reliable sources, and it plainly does. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: thanks to the expansion of Cbl62 Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 20:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer. I would appreciate it if you would weigh the strength of the arguments in your close; whatever the outcome. I still strongly contend that this article is entirely based on an original synthesis of materials as no individual piece of evidence cited in the article or presented here addresses the main topic directly and in detail. The article is built from many small pieces to present coverage of a bigger topic than what any one individual source actually covers on its own. In effect we have an end product here not in evidence in any one source. Further, the one source where the season is mentioned in retrospect is entirely dependent upon quoted text of the team's management, and there is no independent analysis or coverage of the topic independent of the subject. The repeated calls to present evidence here with independent significant coverage have yielded nothing for a reason. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Any professional football team in Britain will garner WP:SIGCOV every season and this one is no different. David Ross's books outline and discuss the 1987–88 season in detail and I'm surprised only one of them is listed in the offline sources section. The season will have been discussed in national newspapers at the time and not just the locals although, as a second tier club, there won't be as much as their would for a top tier club. The main issue with the article is that is does not contain an overview section outlining what happened, it is just a list of results which is unfortunately the condition of a lot of these articles. This, however, is an issue for improvement and not deletion. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 15:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. A final league table published for the Scottish First Division 1987–88 season would be an acceptable source from which to draw facts from regarding Kilmarnock FC's entire season. Facts such as no. of games won, lost and drawn (home and away, if shown), goals scored and conceded, finishing position. Also, facts such as "Kilmarnock scored the 2nd lowest no. of goals in the division, after bottom of the table Dumbarton". No OR/SYNTH is involved; it's merely a restatement in narrative of what is presented in tabular format. Rupples ( talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV in the article and presented in this discussion. Certainly enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 16:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hiro Morita

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

Hiro Morita is an English-language commentator and host on NHK responsible for programs related to professional sumo. From a Wikipedia standpoint, however, I do not believe the subject meets the threshold for notability. The amount of secondary sources on the subject are not sufficient; two of the sources in the article are written by a commentator ( John Gunning) that frequently collaborates with the subject on NHK programming, and most other links point to the NHK website. Searches for additional news articles or websites about the subject lead to poor results. JRHorse ( talk) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, the notability is rather established. If John Gunning writes articles on Hiro Morita it is indeed because the two work together on the subject of sumo for NHK (and this statement is a bit far-fetched given that Gunning only participates in NHK previews) but also and this is important because Gunning is one of the few English-speaking journalists and columnists who works on the world of sumo, at all.
The results you mention are also rare but the same can be mentioned for articles like Ajigawa stable (2022). I especially think that with the channel rooting and the collaboration between Morita and JSA, the article will be able to find more source. - OtharLuin ( talk) 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I do not think that there are enough secondary, independent sources out there to establish notability. Many in the article point to NHK, a primary source. JRHorse ( talk) 11:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. With the Japan Times article above and the rest given, I think he just passes notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I could find 5 sources about it in 2 minutes. Notable. Starship 24 ( talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I disagree as a search for the subject to me still yields insufficient results. I was going to ask this user about the sources they found, but the account has been blocked. JRHorse ( talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . Although there is most certainly no consensus to delete, I find no consensus between the "keep", "redirect", and "merge" !votes. A possible redirect or merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 16:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Insult of officials and the state

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

Fails WP:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount ( talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using "insult" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars t c 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil ( talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) "an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself". This article is about "Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries." No daylight between the two. Oblivy ( talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge -- Assuming the article is accurate and merely needs referencing, not rewriting as well. Oblivy is absolutely correct about the meaning of Lèse-majesté. I do not know if the "no daylight" comment is true of all countries, but most countries do have a civil law legal system, based on the French Napoleonic code, so it's quite plausible. I suggest adding a section listing the names of this crime in the various jurisdictions Elinruby ( talk) 09:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many JStor hits for "lèse-majesté", including Thailand, Germany and Russia, and of course France. Some will be metaphorical, but there are about 5500 so it's not looking *too* difficult to reference Elinruby ( talk) 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment it's a reasonable list to have, but (1) I have absolutely no idea what the final column ("Criminal blasphemy/religious insult") is supposed to be about, and (2) Any editor would be within their rights to reduce this table to four lines, the lines that actually have a reference. The rest is some guy's unsourced opinion. In effect, this is very close to a case for TNT. I'm not removing the unsourced lines at the moment as it would be unhelpful to blank the list mid-AfD. Elemimele ( talk) 13:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a list. Starship 24 ( talk) 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but it probably should be renamed. Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just spent about an hour putting about 12-15 sources on the talk page, fast and dirty for demonstration purposes. It wasn't even slightly difficult, although in some countries it is against the law to insult anyone, so search results for "insult laws" are a bad metric. But yeah, there are many such countries, especially if you include the blasphemy laws. Doing this article right would be a lot of work though. Although I concentrated on normal google results, the sources I mentioned are mostly solid news organizations, with a few scholarly sources, and the scholarly sources are definitely out there; various UN and EU guidebooks for example, and quite a number of universities and International freedom of speech organizations such as CPJ and HRW. Elinruby ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment First of all, point well taken by user:Elinruby - the sources are out there (these kinds of cases tend to make a media impact) but they need to be found. However, apart from sourcing there are lots of existential issues that need to be resolved:
  • the article fails to link to any related concepts, or to country-specific articles (as user:Walt Yoder points out in the case of Thailand). I already pointed out the intersection with Lèse-majesté.
  • the headings are undefined, and conflict with the lede - yes, blasphemy is similar in some respects, and may overlap with disrespect for national symbols, but it needs to be explained
  • the article is nearly an orphan (Turkey and Germany have country-specific articles linking it)
  • as pointed out by user:Elinruby it's hard to tell the difference between a prohibition on insult and one on insulting the state (of which more in a moment)
When Walt Yoder said this is "some guy's unsourced opinion" I thought he was being glib. Actually, it really is [70] almost 100% the work of one edit by one account User:HeliosX. By tracing that account's edits, I found this article Insult_(legal) that ALSO has a long (heavily sourced) list. The topic self-evidently overlaps this article. The user seems to be dormant since early 2022.
I'm still at *merge with Lèse-majeste*, but TNT looks awfully attractive! Oblivy ( talk) 07:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It'd be a good idea to remove the blasphemy element as it confuses the issue. Blasphemy at some level (e.g. when used to foment religious hatred, or to insult an individual based on their religion) is illegal in many countries that have no state religion, where logically blasphemy becomes a crime against an individual rather than a crime against the state. Even in a country with a state religion, it's not always clear whether blasphemy laws are intended to protect the religion or the state, which remain two separate things. Interpreting blasphemy as an insult against the state is synthesis unless sources indicate it explicitly, which renders the whole sourcing job twice as big for no real benefit to the reader. Elemimele ( talk) 07:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Well put. Oblivy ( talk) 09:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It was Elemimele who said "some guy's unsourced opinion", but it is a good line. Walt Yoder ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I would support trimming off the blasphemy section, as blasphemy laws are widespread and the mind-boggling aspects of comparing Irish Roman Catholicism to Iranian fatwas would reduce the likelihood of me, for example, working on the article. The laws about insulting the government are somewhat adjacent to my interest in free speech and disambiguating civil law concepts from commonlaw concepts which is a problem that Wikipedia currently has. However my hands are full at the moment, so yes there is something to the question of who would do it. But as we are frequently reminded, this is not a reason to AfD. It would be good if someone committed to working on it, or on the non-blasphemy parts of it. De-orphaning the article would seem to also just be a matter of doing it. Elinruby ( talk) 19:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:NLIST; there's a broad array of sourcing on the issue as a two minute search of insult laws in Google scholar reveals. Title and contents no doubt could be improved, but current state of an article or its orphan status does not relate to notability WP:NEXIST. Lese-majeste refers to the head of state, the issue of insult covers far more than that and relates to specific laws which limit freedom of speech in regard to the state or religion. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • If this is a list article, the lack of any articles to link to is a concern. Walt Yoder ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Here's a few I found on the first page of a Google scholar search. [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ Vohra, Anchal (29 March 2023). "The EU Is Turning Against NGOs, Too". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  2. ^ Walden, Ruth (2002). "Insult Laws". In McLiesh, Caralee; Islam, Roumeen; Djankov, Simeon (eds.). The Right to Tell: The Roll of Mass Media in Economic Development. World Bank. p. 207. ISBN  9780821352038. In more than 100 countries, individuals - including journalists - can be imprisoned or fined for insulting or offending government officials and institutions.
  3. ^ Clooney, Amal; Webb, Philippa (2017). "The Right to Insult in International Law". Columbia Human RIghts Law Review. 48 (1). ...in many states, it is a criminal offence to insult royalty, rulers, or religion. Prosecutions for such insults are on the rise. The number of journalists who are being imprisoned across the world is, today, at its highest point in over twenty-five years
  4. ^ McCracken, Patti (2012). "Insult Laws: Insulting to Press Freedom - A guide to the evolution of insult laws in 2010" (PDF). Freedom House.
  5. ^ Balule, Badala Tachilisa (2008). "Insult laws: a challenge to media freedom in the SADC's fledgling democracies?". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 41 (3): 404. ISSN  0010-4051. ...many of these states still have anachronistic laws on their statute books that unduly insulate public functionaries from criticism over how they conduct public affairs. One form which this protection takes is insult laws, whose rationale is said to be the protection of the honour and dignity of public functionairies
Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Apologies, @ Walt Yoder, I realise I've probably misinterpreted your comment. Do you mean a lack of Wikipedia articles to which to link? While one needs to keep WP:ORPHAN in mind ("An article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion"), nevertheless, more or less every criminal code article could be linked. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Exactly. If there were links to 20 Wikipedia articles such as Lèse-majesté in China, Lèse-majesté in the United Kingdom in the table, there would be a much stronger argument to leave an imperfect article for improvement. Walt Yoder ( talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Current state of the article (links or ortherwise) has no bearing on notability. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

CommentReading the tea leaves here, seems we aren't going to end with delete, so I decided to WP:BEBOLD and start tinkering with the article. Here's my thinking:

  • discussion seems to be heading towards some version of Keep/Improve
  • there's a separate article on Lèse-majesté and there's nobody (on my reading) saying it doesn't at-least-mostly overlap, so I've included a short sentence and link to that article
  • I've also changed the lede to be more like "list of" articles found elsewhere; eventually we should link to this list within Lèse-majesté
  • a specific objection has been raised to the blasphemy column and nobody (on my reading) is arguing for its inclusion. A bit of regex work and it's gone
  • article title would need to be changed to something like "List of Countries with Laws on Insulting the State, Its Symbols or its Officials". That's not quite right, but it's a start. I won't rename the article as that will probably mess up the AfD process.

Happy to see any comments, polite objections, whatever. My goal isn't to cut off debate, just to try to model what's going on in the discussion. If you want to make more changes to the article that's great too. Oblivy ( talk) 00:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Oblivy - thanks for doing this, although I would recommend copying this comment to the article's talk page, since this is far more content related than notability related. Also FWIW, am in heated agreement, no moves until the AfD is closed, it does mess things up! :) Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Good suggestion. Added a comment on the talk page - anyone here can ignore it. Oblivy ( talk) 03:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as list and all above. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Lèse-majesté. The topic of offence against the head of state is obviously notable, and I can see a clear scope for a list article discussing it in different nation states. The article as it stands is appalling, however. It has four references cells out of >200. Any editor would be justified in draftifying or redirecting it without further discussion; that standard doesn't change because it's been brought to AfD. The referenced content is easily accommodated at the merge target, and if someone wants to write a sourced spinoff in the future, they're welcome to. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Lèse-majesté per Oblivy and subsequent editors. I acknowledge the sourcing found, and concede this is capable of being turning into a reasonable list, but it really is at the WP:TNT level currently, and there is a superior target to develop. Leave the redirect, if one is felt to assist navigation, and move on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Lèse-majesté, per arguments above. Nothing will be lost if this table is added to that article. BD2412 T 01:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Aoidh ( talk) 03:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Asad Zaman

AfDs for this article:
Asad Zaman (  | talk | history | 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 tagged as having been previously nominated for deletion, with a result of delete. Has anything changed?
Notability seems dubious. Although he claims to be widely published, there's no evidence he is a public figure. A quick Google news search yielded a few editorials he's published, but no substantive WP:RS coverage. The fact he has published many papers is not necessarily proof of notability (if a tree falls in the forest...)
One final point - the main editor [71] s User:Izzatun Nisa Syahidah an SPA that has edited only this account. The blog links that were recently added seem to be related to the ones which were added by that account - see User_talk:Izzatun_Nisa_Syahidah - in January 2022 and then reverted. There was only one substantive edits thereafter (by an IP editor) until Asaduzaman's edit today. Oblivy ( talk) 11:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

One update/clarification - without seeing the deleted page it's hard to tell but it seems that the prior listing was a different Asad Zaman. That AfD discussion page talks about modeling and acting which seems to be a mismatch. I still think this article lacks WP:Notability but want to clarify that this might not be a re-creation of a deleted page. Oblivy ( talk) 11:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I checked the already-deleted article, and it is NOT the same person. As Oblivy mentioned, the earlier article was about an actor and model. Joyous! Noise! 15:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As with many of our articles about academics the writer has cited works by rather than about the subject and his works. There seem to be reviews and other papers written by others contributing to WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1 found by this search, and the vice-chancellorship of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (if confirmed) may pass WP:PROF#C6 - note that in the Pakistani system inherited from the English vice-chancellor is the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for your input.
    With respect, I don't see that the google scholar results support WP:PROF#C1. He authored many articles, it’s true, but where's the evidence of a significant impact on his field recognized by others? I scanned through the cites from the past few years and many are one-off references to something he said or thanks from students and researchers for his assistance. A book review or two, but no substantial commentary on his impact, no festschrift. And more importantly, do we have to read notability into his publication and citation counts? Isn’t that itself original research?
    He is mentioned in a handful of news articles as vice-chancellor of PIDE but that’s just saying he appeared on this panel or submitted that opinion, with no substantial coverage, e.g., [72] [73]
    There is one newspaper article discussing his work at PIDE: he was accused of impropriety in making appointments [74] and the ombudsman appears to have found the complaint substantiated at least in part [75]. No doubt this article is low on his list of public mentions! Anyway, is this evidence of notability? It required some structured google searches to locate, and loading the Daily Times article (which pre-dated the ombudsman opinion) required some reverse-engineering of the google URL.
    (A note on the somewhat scandalous material above: I was previously unaware of these allegations. Other than being a bit irritated by the WP:PROMO I have no personal opinion of this gentleman.)
    At best this is a candidate for draftify. The article reads like a cross between a CV and a statement of teaching. It relies in part on his CV website [76] which hasn’t been updated recently and seems to include only one link secondary source, an interview of him that’s just a broken link with no archive available. But if someone (or their assistant) dumps a bunch of self-generated information about themselves into an article, and cites only their own works, it's a sign that there's no substantial secondary coverage. And if there is, then who will do the work to find it? Oblivy ( talk) 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Google Scholar search that I linked excludes papers written by Zaman himself, as I said, so I don't know where you get the idea that it's based on articles authored by him rather than others' responses. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was saying there were no articles mentioning him other than those he wrote himself. I was trying to say, rather, that most of his mentions are just that - mentions. If his body of scholarship is discussed anywhere in detail (set aside in anything close to the hagiographic terms of this WP article) I'd be interested to see it. Oblivy ( talk) 13:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Re: WP:PROF#C6 , does validation of Professor Zaman's position as Vice-Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics and President of the Pakistan Society of Development Economists by the institute itself ( also here) not meet the criteria for WP:PROF#C6? GxJackson ( talk) 04:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep this is a case where some weak argument for WP:NPROF#1 exists with 3 articles with 100+ citations, but none of them seem to be strongly cited year over year. However, together with the vice-chancellorship of (apparently) one of the premier economics institutes in the country, I think he will pass the bar of NPROF. This is clearly somebody who is recognized for his scholarship in his own country as well as internationally as a scholar; by citations alone this would probably not make the bar but with the other elements in the mix I think it manages to pass it. Furthermore, even if deemed notable, the article needs major cleanup or WP:TNT. -- hroest 17:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep VC of the PIDE, a semi-government owned reputable economic policy making institute, meets somehow WP:NPROF#6. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 06:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree with this, Prof. Asad Zaman is currently the Vice Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics and has previously held positions at universities in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Izzatun Nisa Syahidah ( talk) 00:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • See Below Delete: I've cleaned up the article. Basically all OR/SYNTH. Removed all improper ELs per WP:EL; rm all unsourced OR/SYNTH from article per WP:BLP; no IS RS with SIGCOV citations to support content or notability, GNG or BIO. BEFORE found nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV. If someone adds IS RS sources SIGCOV to the article I'll look at them. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify: No need to delete, move it to draftspace and incubate it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tousif.15 ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

As the editor who first proposed the deletion, and after considering everything that followed, I agree with USER:Tousif.15 the best option should be draftify:
  • As confirmed by User:Joyous! article subject is unrelated to the prior AfD
  • He does appear to have some degree of real-world notability per User:Hannes_Röst, User:Phil Bridger and others
  • There appears to be no path to meet Wikipedia notability standards using English language WP:RS
So it can be moved to draftspace and any persons interested in having an article (as noted above, possibly WP:COI or WP:SPA accounts, but nothing can come of that right now) can fix it if at all possible. Oblivy ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • What do English language WP:RS have to do with deletion? If sources don't exist in English then those in other languages are perfectly acceptable per WP:RSUE. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's correct. I shouldn't have put it in those terms. But I haven't seen anyone on this discussion even trying to argue that there are non-English sources that support his article. Oblivy ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, mostly per WP:V and WP:TNT. I don't think there was anything verifiable or worth saving in the as-nominated version. Timothy's stub, despite lacking any reliable sources (it has a footnote to a Google Scholar profile but I don't consider that to be a reliable source and would only use it as an extlink) at least has content that looks like it should be verifiable, and if it can be backed by proper sources might make a claim to multiple WP:PROF notability criteria. That would be independent of WP:GNG, so if they can be verified in reliable sources then Zaman might well be notable even if those sources don't have the depth of coverage that would be needed for GNG. But verifiability is non-negotiable. I don't like the use of draftification for backdoor deletion, but in a case like this where the article is clearly not in shape for main article space, there is plausible case for notability that merely needs verifiable sourcing, and none of the AfD participants has already added that sourcing, it might be the right choice. I could revisit this opinion if better sources are added before this AfD closes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep, As notability of Prof. Asad Zaman. He is one of the Editorial Board Members of Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance (international peer-reviewed and scientific journal which is published quarterly by Bank Indonesia Institute). [77]
    Prof. Asad Zaman also has valid profile in Scopus. [78] Izzatun Nisa Syahidah ( talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    See reference for Professor Zamad's position as Vice-Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics and President of the Pakistan Society of Development Economists (to meet WP:PROF#C6) from the institute itself here and here. GxJackson ( talk) 04:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    We do not need additional grandiose titles and accomplishments for notability. We need published reliable sources, independent of Zaman and of these institutions, that can say something nontrivial about the significance of these titles and about Zaman's accomplishments under them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Echoing user:David Eppstein's comment, I'd add that verifiable content needs to be put into the article space. Proving up the importance of the individual here, without adding properly sourced article text, doesn't mean very much. Oblivy ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Echoing the others here, in 2021, Asad Zaman was selected to be on an advisory committee for the prime minister of Pakistan, as documented on Wikipedia, which points to several external sources to confirm.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Advisory_Council_(Pakistan)
    That clearly fulfills notability criteria #7
    Criteria #6 is fulfilled by his being Vice Chancellor of a major institution: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE)
    I have personally learned a great deal from Professor Zaman and his work in the past four years and have interviewed him twice on my own podcast [ in 2020] and [ in 2022].
    I must say, I am puzzled with how casually a lack of notability is being assumed rather than considering a lack of personal familiarity. Not to mention the obvious fulfillment of more than one of your criteria, both of which can be verified with a simple search on Google – or Wikipedia. Aliteralmind ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    So obviously, I vote STRONG KEEP  :) Aliteralmind ( talk) 17:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draft: switchted from delete; I can agree to a consensus draft.  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply


Let me briefly introduce myself before I write something about Dr Asad Zaman.

I am Dr Atiq ur Rehman, an Associate Professor of Economics and Director of Kashmir Institute of Economics, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. My profile is found here http://economics.ajku.edu.pk/Faculty/Detail/15

I am direct student of Dr Asad Zaman and know about him in great details.

Dr Asad Zaman has held many prestigious positions. A brief overview is as under a. Dr Asad Zaman has written large number of academic papers, see his scholarly contributions at following https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=U9Cl-pgAAAAJ b. He is author of a number of books, see some of his books at following https://www.amazon.com/Books-Asad-Zaman/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AAsad+Zaman c. He has been Director General of International Institute of Islamic Economics, International Islamic University for a long period. His profile on the website of IIU can be found at following https://www.iiu.edu.pk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/academics/short_cv/iiie/asad_zaman.pdf d. He has been Vice Chancellor, Pakistan top policy think tank and University. His profile can be found here https://pide.org.pk/research-author/asad-zaman/ e. He has been president of Pakistan Society of Development Economics and in this capacity, has presided several meetings of PSDE, the largest forum of economists in Pakistan. The proof of his presidential address are found here https://www.jstor.org/stable/43831316 f. Dr Asad Zaman has been member of Monetary Policy Committee of Pakistan, the committee that is responsible for deciding monetary policy committee. Please see the proof at following https://www.sbp.org.pk/cmad/2021/MPC-19-Nov-2021-Eng.pdf g. Dr Asad Zaman has been a member of Monetary and Fiscal Coordination Board, a board which include the representatives of Government and Central Bank. See the proof here http://pid.gov.pk/site/press_detail/15509 h. Dr. Asad Zaman has been a member of the Economic Advisory Council of Prime Minister of Pakistan. The proof is here /info/en/?search=Economic_Advisory_Council_(Pakistan) https://www.dawn.com/news/1430355 i. Dr. Asad Zaman is Editor of International Econometric Review, a prestigious academic journal https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ier/board j. Dr. Asad Zaman is editorial board member of Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, seethe proof here https://www.jimf-bi.org/index.php/JIMF/about/editorialTeam k. Dr. Asad Zaman has been member of governing council of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the custodian of national data. See the proof here https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files//other/newsletters/newsletter_jan_march_2015.pdf l. He frequently writes for newspaper, see the proof here https://asadzaman.net/category/writings/newspaper-articles/ m. He is public speaker and orator, see some of his speeches at his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@AsadZaman7 n. His work is often cited by top economists as it may be seen from the citations of his scholarly work. Therefore, Dr Asad Zaman has significant impact both in academic circles and in policy circles outside academia. Therefore I think it would extremely inappropriate if his introduction is deleted from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atiqajku ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify. I agree with David Eppstein that the case notability seems to be there, but neither the nominated version nor the current version of the article seem to be ready for the Article namespace. The current stub seems worthwhile to incubate. -- Kinu  t/ c 06:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply


From what I understand from previous remarks, DRAFTIFICATION is just an INDIRECT DELETION. So in order to write a new entry, I would like to know what is wrong with the previous one. To my best understanding, it fulfills all Wikipedia requirements, just as Dr. Asad Zaman easily fulfills all Wikipedia requirements for notability.

Lots of primary source information by COI editor

Asad Zaman (born 1955) is a Pakistani professor, economist and social scientist. He has been a member of Monetary Policy Committee of State Bank of Pakistan. Previously he has served Vice Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, member of the Economic Advisory Committee to the Prime Minister, and Director General of International Institute of Islamic Economics, International Islamic University, Islamabad. He earned his PhD in economics from Stanford University in 1978, MS in statistics from Stanford University in 1976 and BS in mathematics from MIT in 1974. He is also the editor of International Econometric Review, and on the editorial board of many other journals.



For more biographical material, see “Reflections on an MIT education”, “The Education of an Economist”, and https://asadzaman.net/about-me/.

Books like “The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East”, “Rulers, Religion, and Riches: Why the West Got Rich and the Middle East Did Not”, and many others, explore the reasons for the great divergence in growth rates of European Societies and the rest of the world. This question has been one of the central foci of Dr. Asad Zaman’s research over the past few decades. He argues the global conquest and colonization by the West led to shock-and-awe, and an inferiority complex in the East. Conquest of the Mongols was easily overcome, but the loss to the West occurred on the intellectual battleground. This is the real source of current difficulties of the Islamic Civilization. Imposition of alien structures of knowledge, and foreign colonial institutions, unsuitable to Islamic societies, has prevented the development of indigenous analysis and institutional structures. He has proposed the “Ghazali Project”, described in greater detail later, as a solution to this problem.



PUBLICATIONS:

The Google Scholar author page for Asad Zaman lists more than a 200 published articles, with more than 2000 citations. The top 3 highly cited papers are listed below:

Econometric applications of high-breakdown robust regression techniques This paper was of seminal importance in popularizing the use of robust techniques in econometrics.

Islamic economics: A survey of the literature This paper breaks from an orthodoxy which holds that Islamic Economics can be harmonized with Western economics. It argues strongly that the two approaches are diametrically opposed in many different ways. This theme is further clarified in a later paper on Islam Versus Economics.

Interindustry variation in the costs of job displacement This paper provides an exposition of the merits of empirical and Hierarchical Bayesian estimators in cross section data sets.

Also, Statistical foundations for econometric techniques is a highly cited advanced econometrics text. The back-cover quotes Nobel Laureate Lawrence Klein: “Asad Zaman's … provides highly informative insight for economists. He has taken econometrics back to its most fruitful origins … ”

Downloadable copies of over 80 publications by Dr. Asad Zaman are available from his author page at https://ssrn.com/author=289526. The top three downloads include “Islamic Economics: A Survey of the Literature”, already discussed earlier. The other two are:

Rise and Fall of a Market Economy This paper uses the analysis of Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation to argue that market economies create market societies, with destructive social norms of greed and competition. The spread of market societies has led to multiple crises and looming planetary collapse. It is the need of the hour to replace the market mechanism by social mechanisms based on generosity, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The Empirical Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Review of the Literature This paper surveys the massive amount of empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory, which is the foundation of modern economics.

Radical Views:

At the heart of Dr Asad Zaman’s radical views is the idea that “Social Science” makes a false claim to universality, while it is based upon European societies, and restricted to the West in applicability. Arguments for this claim are detailed in the following two papers.

“The Puzzle of Western Social Science” Why does modern social science claim to be universal in application, when it is easily seen to be based on the European experience? The paper argues that Max Weber’s insistence that social science should be value-free led to the concealments of values within an apparently objective, rational, and value-neutral framework.

“The Origins of Western Social Science” This paper argues that loss of faith in Christianity led to re-opening of the major questions concerning the meaning of our lives, the origins of the universe, and standards of conduct. Western social science developed from the attempt to find answers to these fundamental questions, and hence can be regarded as the religion which replaced Christianity in Europe. The answers which it produced are radically opposed to the answers provided by traditional religions across the world, and hence not compatible with Christianity or Islam.

Surprisingly, Dr Zaman also rejects Statistics and Econometrics as elements of the Western Social Sciences. In “Fisher’s Failures and the Foundations of Statistics”, he argues that Fisher developed the current methodology to enable reduction of large amounts of data to a few sufficient statistics primarily because of lack of adequate computational capabilities. This methodology is now obsolete but remains in place due to intellectual inertia. Similarly, in “A Realist Approach to Econometrics”, he argues the Econometrics is nothing more than fraud by numbers. Regression results come out of the impossibly stringent assumptions of regression models but are falsely attributed to the data.

Rejecting Western Social Science as a Eurocentric religion leads to the obvious question of what should replace it? Dr Asad Zaman sketches an outline for a discipline of Uloom-ul-Umran (the science of living together) based loosely on the methodology of Ibn-e-Khaldun, the founder of the social sciences. He has also developed alternate approaches to Statistics, Econometrics, and Economics, outlined in the COURSES section given below.

Islamic Economics

Rejection of Western Social Science obviously leads to a call for rebuilding the entire domain of knowledge from the ground up. Dr. Zaman argues for replacing Western Economics by Islamic Economics. A few of his key papers in this area are:

“The Normative Foundations of Scarcity” This illustrates the theme that Western Social Science is built upon hidden moral foundations. The apparently objective concept of scarcity is based on three moral principles, discussed in the paper.

“The Crisis in Islamic Economics” The paper argues that orthodox attempts to build Islamic economics in harmony with Western Economics have failed, leading to a crisis. This is because of the attempt to combine contradictory bodies of knowledge. Alternative foundations on which a genuine Islamic economic theory could be constructed involve recognizing the freedom of human beings to choose between good and evil. The goal of an Islamic economics is to create a spiritual transformation in human beings, and to use material means to bring this about.

“Islam's Gift: An Economy of Spiritual Development” This paper explains how an Islamic approach to economics would be concerned with the spiritual development of society, as opposed to the accumulation of wealth.

The Ghazali Project

Dr. Zaman characterizes the current problem facing the Islamic Civilization as being similar to the one faced and resolved by Imam Al-Ghazali a millennium ago. Shock-and-awe of translations of the complex and sophisticated Greek philosophies led the Mu’tazila to conclude that reason (=Greek Philosophy) was on par with revelation (=Quran). In his landmark book “The Incoherence of the Philsophers”, Al-Ghazali demonstrated major flaws underlying these philosophies, and created alternative approaches based on Islamic foundations. Dr. Zaman argues that today the Modern Mu’tazila have accepted the Western Social Sciences as being on par with, or superior to, a thousand years of developments within the Islamic intellectual tradition. To counter this, it is necessary to reject the Western Social Science as being built upon moral foundations antithetical to Islam. For more details, see the Ghazali Project.

COURSES

A Western education automatically creates a Western worldview, which conflicts with Islamic teachings. The greatest challenge facing the Muslims today is to develop an alternative to a secular modern education. The puzzle of how an Islamic methodology can affect the teaching of apparently objective and secular subjects is addressed in “Useful Versus Useless Knowledge”. Dr Zaman has developed several online courses, freely available, to illustrate:

Capitalist Economics (an Islamic Approach): This course treats economic theory within its historical and cultural context. The course covers Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, and relevant theoretical materials.

Descriptive Statistics: An Islamic Approach: This basic course on descriptive statistics explains that numbers cannot be analyzed in isolation from their real world meanings and application context. Once real world context, and “useful knowledge” is taken into account, then Islamic concepts play an important role. See post on “Statistics: An Islamic Approach?” for further explanation.

Fundamental Probability Concepts: An Islamic Approach. Focusing on what is useful, as opposed to theorem/proof/axiomatics, is like focusing on driving, instead of teaching how the car engine works. This set of six lecture teaches basic concepts of probability theory for one variable case at the level of Mood, Graybill and Boes, using the bare essential mathematics required.

Econometrics for Muslims: Focusing on materials which matters for applications, and excluding many standard topics which have theoretical value but no application, creates an unusual approach to econometrics.

Social Media

Dr Asad Zaman blogs at the WEA Pedagogy Blog and the Islamic Worldview Blog. He also has a YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/AsadZaman7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atiqajku ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: The COI comments here will obviously be ignored, but this does raise a problem with the article being drafted, if it will only be restored restored without improvement. The draft close (should I happen) should stipulate that the draft should only be moved to mainspace after review by AfC.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per the arguments above to that effect, with the proviso that any promotion back to article space can only happen after a careful review. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Noone has refuted that the coverage is simply routine. Courcelles ( talk) 13:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Zion Christian Academy

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

Created by a WP:SPA, WP:COI account in 2009, 14 years later this article still has only one reference, and that is a now deleted page on the school's website. The school does exist, but there is no evidence that it is in any way notable. Jacona ( talk) 12:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Closing for spring break and graduating students is routine coverage. Rest is about as trivial. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The source that discusses closing for spring break provides significant coverage about the subject. It says that Zion Christian Academy was founded in 1979, has 480 students, is a pre-kindergarten to grade 12 school, has students who "test in the top 24 percent nationwide", and discusses the test scores of the students on the ACT. Cunard ( talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
So beyond basic facts, it still isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom. Sources in artcle, above and BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE, PRIMARY, PROMO. This is a completely normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  //  Timothy ::  talk  12:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (he/her) ( talk) 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete a school closing for spring break, playing sports and graduating students is very routine, I'm not sure why we think these can be used to prove notability. My kids school also does these things. Trivial coverage that doesn't equal GNG. The building is not a listed heritage building. What's left is largely promo for a non-notable, run of the mill school. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete it’s a fee-paying private school so has to meet NCORP, but all we have is coverage from a local newspaper, which any school would have. Mccapra ( talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC) striking !vote following correction by Cunard, but I still don’t think it’s notable. Mccapra ( talk) 11:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Zion Christian Academy is a non-profit educational institution. According to https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/452842036, it is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria."

    As Zion Christian Academy is not a for-profit educational institution, it does not need to meet WP:NCORP even though it is "a fee-paying private school". Editors argue that Zion Christian Academy is "a completely normal school" and a "run of the mill school". This is true. Per the notability guideline for schools, it is sufficient for Zion Christian Academy as a non-profit educational institution to be a "completely normal school" and still meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The general notability guideline allows sources about a school's sports activities, graduations, art performances, and school news to be used to establish notability. In its definition of "significant coverage", the general notability guideline says a source qualifies when it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" and "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The sources I provided meet this requirement.

    It is fine for a school to have "coverage from a local newspaper" be used to establish notability. In this case, Zion Christian Academy received coverage beyond local sources. It was covered in The Tennessean, a regional newspaper that has a circulation area of 39 counties in Middle Tennessee and eight counties in southern Kentucky. The Tennessean is based in Nashville, Tennessee, while Zion Christian Academy is based in Columbia, Tennessee. This is a distance of 46 miles (74 km), which means Zion Christian Academy has received non-local coverage.

    Cunard ( talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Sufficient regional coverage that meets NCORP/GNG. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 01:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable. Andre 🚐 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Per WP:CORPDEPTH we would need to see significant coverage of Zion Christian Academy as a school/institution (it's history, it's academic programs, it's extracurricular offerings, it's mission, etc.) None of the sources above provide any in-depth overall coverage of the organization as as a school. The WP:REFBOMBING of sources consist mainly of routine school announcements which are essentially press releases to the media, routine coverage of school sporting events and graduation, and other isolated events that lack any broader big picture coverage. etc. Without any sources covering the school in a larger picture, I am not seeing a strong indicator of notability under GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The sources listed above show this is an average, normal, unnotable school. It is entirely ROUTINE local coverage the kind any school would receive.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

BuildSalon

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

The sources are almost all Japanese which makes judging notability more difficult, but I can't see any coverage which indicates that WP:CORP is met. SmartSE ( talk) 14:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep We have the website for official in English, so
https://buildsalon.us/ BuildSalon
And we provide a few main links to you of documents written by some third parties.
Please use a page translation such as Google or Microsoft providing.
Thank you and we wish for your understanding about this problem!
Interview
5. Ukai's Interview (2023-03-22). "Ask an online salon production expert about the secrets of launching and avoiding participation risks". Enilno (Interview). Interviewed by Eri Matsuoka. OPTAGE. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
https://enilno.jp/all/build-salon.html
Business contents
2. BuildSalon Co., Ltd. – Industry IT/Information Communication". Ipros Monodukuri. 2022-12-27. Retrieved 2023-03-21.　https://www.ipros.jp/company/detail/2102537/
4. Japanese website production company information BuildSalon Co., Ltd". WebKanji. 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
https://web-kanji.com/companies/buildsalon
Introduction
8. Online salon popularity ranking! Reputation and reviews that actually joined". Back-office Magazine. 2022-11-25. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
https://boc-n.com/mag/1000068/
15, [First in Japan] Word of mouth and reputation of"BuildSalon Co., Ltd.", a company specializing in online salons!". Find your own salon! Onsarofan!. Onsarofan!. 2022-01-02. Retrieved 2023-03-20.
https://onsalofan.com/buildsalon/
16. What is a Build Salon? From features to reputation, based on actual reviews!". Live Trend Editorial Department. 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
https://live.doneru.jp/buildsalon/
18. BuildSalon Co., Ltd." A web production company that focuses on online salons! Approaching the five attractions". Online na Mainichi. 2020-09-25. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
https://action-masa.com/2020/09/25/bloga9/
20. Uemura, Tokachi (2020-07-18). "We directly interviewed an online salon specialist company "BuildSalon Co., Ltd."!". Onsarofan! (Interview). Interviewed by Onsarofan Editorial. Onsarofan!. Retrieved 2023-03-20.
https://onsalofan.com/buildsalon-interview/ MW002045 ( talk) 04:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Most of the sources listed on the page are from random blogs or from the company's website (a primary source). Seems like self-promotion. lullabying ( talk) 07:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Aoidh ( talk) 03:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Dominik Solák

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

Another contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I updated statistics of his representative career and they say that he is a notable player within the country. FromCzech ( talk) 07:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All I'm finding in idnes.cz are passing mentions and routine match recap-style interviews (per NSPORT/NOTNEWS, coverage in routine match recaps does not contribute to notability, and anything repeating what the subject says is not independent or secondary) with little independent commentary, e.g. [80] [81] [82] [83]. Same with denik.cz: [84] [85]. JoelleJay ( talk) 12:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore redirect per nominating comment on the first AFD and per JoelleJay's source analysis. Willing to reconsider if better coverage is made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in concurrence with JoelleJay. Reading them, a lot are not more than passing mentions. ( an interview tho.) Having search results be populated with so many sports databases indicates to me that they aren't notable. SWinxy ( talk) 00:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I can't find any specific notability criteria for handball players, but I don't consider handball totally insignificant sport, at least in the context of Europe. I can't imagine an AfD for a football player who plays five years in a national team. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 06:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was thinking exactly what Vejvančický was going to write a moment before me. It is irrelevant to judge the notability of athletes according to how their biography is analyzed in secondary sources and not according to what sports achievements and merits they have. If I remember correctly, the criteria for footballers is that they only need to have one match in the top league to deserve a wiki page. If I look at football players or other handball players, most of their pages would have to be deleted. FromCzech ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    If I look at football players or other handball players, most of their pages would have to be deleted. Yes. They should. SWinxy ( talk) 14:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ FromCzech, the criteria for footballers was removed following the WP:NSPORTS2022 global RfC, which resulted in the elimination of all participation-based criteria and reaffirmed the requirement that all subjects meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Then someone should fix WP:FOOTYN, as it doesn't reflect what you say, User:JoelleJay. Nobody touched the page since closing that RfC in March 2022. The RfC is quite a mess. You seem to have a strong opinion on this - you participated a lot over there. But I digress. Solák is one of the top Czech handball players, one of the leaders of HCB Karviná, 2022 Czech Handball Extraliga (the top competition in the country) winner. He was the first star at least in one of the last year's final extraliga matches against Plzeň. [86] He is a member of the senior men's Czech national handball team and represented his country on international level since 2018. All easily verifiable. There is an interview with him in the Mladá fronta DNES, one of the largest Czech newspapers. Another one at the official website of the Czech Handball Association. He is not a newbie, not a starlet in an insignificant sport. What is the benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of sports bio??? Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    FOOTYN is a wikiproject essay, it never had any legitimacy in AfDs. NFOOTY was the former guideline. What is the benefit of having a database entry as an article? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per JoelleJay and per no !keep voter being able to find GNG-compliant sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Tar Heel Wrestling Club

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

Promotional article, fails GNG and NSPORTS. Sources in article are primary, BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  17:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tarheel wrestling club has had multiple world medalists represent them at significant world wrestling tournaments. It is equal to that of [Nittany Lions Wrestling Club] which is also an RTC program for the Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjrocha ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) ( talk) 20:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: also could not find any significant coverage, not even local -- there is nothing in any of the major Chapel Hill publications that I found, not even student media. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete while there may be several notable people in the club, as a whole, the club itself is not notable.   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lack of Primary source, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS NP83 ( talk) 10:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cedarburg (town), Wisconsin. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Cedarburg Wire and Nail Factory

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

Building does not have in-depth coverage in multiple sources to establish notability, per WP:NBUILD. I've looked for other sources but haven't been able to find anything that makes more than a passing mention about the factory. CoatGuy2 ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by nom: Discussion of article's 4 sources:
1) Kelm's " Early History of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin" has a half-page entry on the building, which is the most significant coverage of the subject I could find. (Kelm might be self-published, though. The scans clearly show her manuscript was typed on a typewriter.)
2) Property Record: 4807 COLUMBIA RD doesn't have much information about the building except for a couple of dates, and is from a Wisconsin database of thousands of properties, many of which are not notable.
3) Gierach only includes one sentence on the building in a paragraph about one of its owners: 'Weber later bought the Excelsior Mill (along with the Wurthmann Brother and Fred Kuether) in 1890 and converted it into the Cedarburg Nail Factory.'
4) And the dam inspection report isn't a source that can be used to judge notability.
CoatGuy2 ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CoatGuy2 ( talk) 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable local structure. Doesn't seem it's still standing and I don't see that it's been listed in the NRHP. nothing notable that we can use found either. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Vague coverage of them cleaning up the river down from where this was, but nothing that helps GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge [was Keep]. This is a good contribution that Wikipedia makes, giving background on a historic mill in the community, built in 1821. Seems factual, "helpful", of local significance. There can be many reasons a place does not become NRHP-listed, including owner objections, deterioration of historic character. Basically, I think old mills, where anything can be known about them as here, are Wikipedia-appropriate. Like castles are (see excellent essay wp:ITSACASTLE). --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 01:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Or "Merge" is okay too. Like other historic places, to be covered it does not need to be in a separate article, it can be covered in a list-article instead, which provides better context for all elements covered. This article links to articles on other mills in the area. There is Category:Textile mills in Wisconsin with four items in it. Merging into something like List of textile mills in Wisconsin or List of water mills in Wisconsin or a Wisconsin section of a List of textile mills in the United States (which I would be willing to start if it does not yet exist) would be okay. I have done a lot on List of windmills in the United States recently (see its Talk page and edit history if you like), by the way. It has a section on historic windmills in Wisconsin, List of windmills in Wisconsin.
There you go, it has to be kept (albeit perhaps with encouragement to merge to a list-article), because that is an alternative to deletion that is available, and we're required to accept that, per wp:ATD. Just "Keeping" is simpler. We should be gathering and building, not deleting. (And I will post notice of this AFD at WikiProject Mills). --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment from nom: In this case, I don't find the essay you cite (and wrote) to be particularly convincing, @ Doncram:. Forgive me for being blunt, but the essay and above argument use circular reasoning and ignore the community's generally accepted standards around notability (see WP:GNG). Being a mill or old does not make a subject inherently notable, however much you or any other editor might like mills and old things. The GNG puts forward that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources [NOTE: emphasis on more than one source] that are independent of the subject." The most significant coverage this nail factory received was 1 paragraph + 1 sentence in a typewritten manuscript. At present, there are no other available secondary sources that make more than a passing mention to this building. This subject gets a sentence in the article on Cedarburg, Wisconsin#Economy and could get a sentence in Cedar Creek (Wisconsin), but giving more mention to the subject would give it undue weight. Most historians have ignored this building in favour of larger, more significant industries in the area. But this subject won't warrant a standalone article until multiple reliable, independent secondary sources give it more than a passing mention. CoatGuy2 ( talk) 04:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, I'm glad you agree that the essay is excellent, at least, even if it doesn't apply very directly here. Thanks for your affirmation! --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 04:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: Haha, and I'm glad that you agree that the article should be deleted! Looks like you forgot to change your vote, though! CoatGuy2 ( talk) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I agree with User:BD2412's suggestion...it would fit in fine in the town article where it mentions other historic places. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by nom: I can agree to a merger as well. CoatGuy2 ( talk) 12:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Naser Kelmendi

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

BLP that does not pass WP:CRIME. Mccapra ( talk) 08:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

KEEP As far as I'm concerned this easily passes notability: he is inserted into the history of Sarajevo for reasons mentioned in the article, was singled out by US President Barack Obama for sanctions, is constantly in the news regarding events in the former Yugoslavia (including news from last year), and was even named as one of the most notorious criminals in 2012's OCCRP Person of the Year report. I agree the article needs to be expanded still, but nominating for deletion this early and by pointing to a guideline that the article does not seem to breach as far as notability goes seems a bit premature to me. -- Dynamo128 ( talk) 08:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP/INCUBATE this article was created in the last 24 hours. It has sufficient sourcing in my mind to satisfy WP:CRIME and WP:GNG, and in my own search I see coverage I’d describe as in depth and ongoing coverage, he’s been tried and convicted and that was covered in major world media ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kosovo-trial-kelmendi-idUSKBN1FL5SA), he’s under sanctions ( https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/20150324_kelmendi.pdf), etc. Why are we rushing to delete this article? Give the authors some time to improve the article. My own quick search suggests he’s notable, I encourage others to conduct their own cursory search before reaching any conclusions. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 13:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Aoidh ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Finnart F.C.

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 10:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Stub article and a number of improvements necessary to bring up to the same level of the other teams in the same league (where there is no consideration of deletion). Id keep until improvements are made. Macarism Talk 10:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to West of Scotland Football League#Third Division. The subject appears to fail the essay WP:NCLUB, and I could not find enough SIGCOV online for this article to meet the GNG. However, it would be preferable to redirect instead of delete because this team is part of a notable league and is a possible search term. The Night Watch (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence of notability. Ping me if multiple IS RS SIGCOV sources are added to the article.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of notability. Nigej ( talk) 19:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Aoidh ( talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Krakoa

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

Another contested redirect. Not a single in-depth source from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Fails WP:NPLOT. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth discussions of the island. Everything is in-universe. Onel5969 TT me 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per my vote in the 3rd nomination, although I'll note that contesting the redirect seems fine, given that discusison ended with a keep vote, so redirecting would require a new discussion (which I guess we will have now). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep again. Why are we here, when this is likely to be represented in the MCU so soon? It's a major setting in Marvel's comics, "searches turned up mentions" is undoubtedly true, but likely an understatement. I've not time to go re-copy specific sources at this point, but will later if no one else gets to it first. Jclemens ( talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep This was literally just speedily kept like two months ago, putting it up for AFD so soon again after that does not seem appropriate. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect To House of X, which the journals mentioned in the last AfD appear to be about, not the island specifically. Also, the previous AfD was a WP:BADNAC pile-on style WP:SUPERVOTE. "Speedy keep" is not an applicable rationale in such a situation, so its result should be considered null and void. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as there is decent coverage out there, it's just a bad article at the moment. I'll add it to my to do list, I want to hit Giant Size X-Men first but this ties to that as well as House of X and there's substance about. Hiding T 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    See also WP:SOURCESEXIST which has been the sole argument here so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks. If it helps, this article is nominated using WP:PLOT as the reason, and I wrote that particular piece of policy. It's an article that could be better, and a better article would improve Wikipedia and inform readers and for me that's the point, nay, the WP:PURPOSE. Hiding T 21:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you so much. This is my position as well. Far too many articles are deleted not because they're actually non-notable but because there has been a lack of effort to make them decent. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the same reasons in the last two discussions and the claims of @ Jclemens:, @ StarTrekker:, and @ Hiding:. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination refers to the current state of the article (even though there already is a minimal reception section and a publication history), but that's not the decisive thing. Contrary to what Zxcvbnm implied, keep votes are not based on unsubstantiated claims that there might be secondary sources out there, but such sources have been brought forward in previous deletion discussions. I can copy those here if that's deemed necessary, but it clearly would have been the job of the nominator to inform themselves about those. So I think this article should be kept, as its problems can be improved through normal editing based on those sources. In this specific case, I think a nomination so shortly after the last (and already the fourth!) is not appropriate: In case of suspected inappropriate closue, considering a WP:Deletion review would have been the thing to do, as well as having a close look at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. More generally I ask Onel5969 to refrain from cookie-cutter deletion nominations and really do a proper WP:BEFORE search before future nominations, as required by Wikipedia's deletion process. Daranios ( talk) 10:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Courcelles ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Star Sapphires

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

Another contested redirect without a single in-depth reference from an independent reliable secondary source. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Zero real world notability, everything is in-universe. Onel5969 TT me 09:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge the opening paragraph to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#S - While I would have agreed completely with that initial merge to the Star Sapphire (DC Comics character) page for all of the reasons stated in this nom, that page is no longer a viable target as it, itself, went through an AFD with the consensus to merge it to the List of DC Comics characters: S page, which just has not been done yet. Outside of that opening paragraph, the current page is one hundred percent in-universe plot summary with the only sources being used being the comics themselves. Searching for sources on the group as a whole just turns up more plot summaries and listicles. While some individual members (mainly just Carol Ferris) may have a bit more coverage, the group as a whole does not have enough to warrant more than a brief summary on a larger list. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • For consistency sake I rather it stay since all the other emotional spectrum organizations have articles and one is as notable as the other. Are we contesting the rest of the emotional spectrum organizations then? This is just as annoying as merging one of the Power Pack characters but all the rest of the members stay even when one of the mergists threatened they were next but it never happened. I don’t know if it’s OCD or what... But it grinds my gears when you go halfway with similar relevant articles. Jhenderson 777 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I mean, very likely with the obvious exception of the Green Lantern Corps, I would very much argue to merge those as well, as all of those articles suffer the exact same issues as this one. (Particularly the article on the Orange Lantern Corps, as there is no true "Orange Lantern Corps" and Larfleeze already has their own article, but that is another discussion altogether). But, as a large group nomination of all of them together probably would have resulted in a call to separate them into individual AFDs, all we can do is discuss each one individually as they come up. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You can argue it all you want, but chances are this article will most likely be merged just because this was on AFD and the other articles will maybe stay seeming just as inconsistent on Wikipedia as the Power Pack Power family having all but one article of the characters. Like I said, the whole Power Pack (beside Alex, who ironically enough is the more the protagonist than all the rest!!!!) was claimed to be not as notable too but they never got the never AFD boot. Seems weird on what article we decide to pick and choose on. I know this is similar to that silly essay argument, Other things argument yada yada yada. But this is still a valid issue that bugs me and maybe can be an issue to readers too. Jhenderson 777 13:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The claims of Jhenderson777 are literally just "it would annoy me if this is merged and other articles are not". That is not a valid reason for keeping, and thus making a Keep argument based purely on that is likewise not a valid reason for keeping. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • While I do not disagree, Rorshacma. It’s more of a comment with the preference of keep. But I do feel like you are mocking the situation that I brought up. At this point all these AFD’s are getting useless. Because these AFDs are for deletion and everybody knows they will ended up merged instead. I think the AFD is a setup ruse for more opinions to get rid of the article potentially. Why not merge request since we all know they won’t be deleted? I don’t know about AFD, but at least we can merge request more than one relevant articles too. Also if it’s allowed in AFD, then why don’t we use more than one example like what I am bringing up? Jhenderson 777 23:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The non-listicles and plot summary sources are really the barest of mentions of the group. Also, the very first book you linked to does not actually seem to be on the right topic - it appears to be speaking of the Star Sapphire characters as they appeared in the Silver Age. Not the actual "Star Sapphire Corps", which this article is about, which did not debut until the late 2000's. Confusing, I know, but that's why having three separate articles on Carol Ferris (the character most closely associated with the name Star Sapphire), Star Sapphire (DC Comics character) (a bunch of other minor characters associated with the name Star Sapphire but not part of the the actual group "The Star Sapphires") and this article on the "Star Sapphires" group, all three of which reiterate a lot of the same information, is clearly not the best way to present any of the actual reliably sourced information. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with "barest mention" (that happens in more secondary sources not listed), but discounting Nerd Ecology, what I've seen is probably not enough non-plot information for a stand-alone article. (There might be for a Star Sapphire article which includes the Star Sapphire corps, but it seems that ship has sailed for now.) Merge then. Daranios ( talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, while there really is not enough for a standalone article on any of the non-GL "emotional spectrum" groups like this one, maybe there is a possibility for some kind of article covering the concept behind them as a whole that they could all be merged into. For now, though, that List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#S is the best place to cover the information on this group. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh ( talk) 03:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Preamble, Inc.

Preamble, Inc. (  | talk | history | 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 does not seem to be supported by much. While they've been around for three years, the only references are passing mentions (in a long list of companies) in an arXiv paper, a venture firm's website, a podcast interview, a Forbes profile of the founder (which makes no mention of "Preamble"), a Medium post, and a press release by a research organization that doesn't mention Preamble in the body text at all (it is mentioned only in a footnote).

I could not find any additional sources for this article by doing a WP:BEFORE search. jp× g 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Respectable call on the decline. I did some digging on "prompt injection attacks" and it was a vulnerability with GPT-3 which is now irrelevant. Press mentions of them finding it but nothing in-depth to show notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. No, its not irrelevant I think is still important and I copied it from the Prompt engineering page. Please see some sources from the industry and I added some as well. Thanks 1 2 3 techcrunch and 5 TechMak ( talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Which of these five references meets the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT? I looked at all of them and in my opinion, none. But, I am wiling to discuss in case there is something I missed. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
You said it was a vulnerability with GPT-3 which is now irrelevant, that's why I shared these articles so you can see that its not irrelevant and still exists. TechMak ( talk) 08:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
My questions is very specific. Which of the references you presented meets WP:ORGCRIT? The content, relevant or not, holds no weight without ORGCRIT which is is what will be needed to show notability. Are you able to specify? -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Prompt injections are definitely not irrelevant, but I'm not personally convinced that Preamble's part in discovering the attack is enough for notability. PopoDameron ⁠ talk 20:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Seconding that these remain relevant, but I do not see any credible source saying that Preamble "invented" or "first discovered" them; the ref given is basically quoting them that it happened. It does not really demonstrate that nobody did this prior to May 2022 (a claim which is almost risible in and of itself). jp× g 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes you may be right but do you have any lead on who invented it before them? On Wikipedia if someone invented or founded something that is surely considered notable but if you can demonstrate that it would be helpful. TechMak ( talk) 08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

continued comment I read somewhere that single event notability exists as well like WP:SINGLEEVENT for people but I can't find it now. TechMak ( talk) 08:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Regardless of whether or not Preamble really discovered prompt injections, the coverage on the company is not enough to pass WP:NCORP. PopoDameron ⁠ talk 03:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh ( talk) 03:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Walkies

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

Resubmitting malformed AfD on behalf of User:Marsbar8 162 etc. ( talk) 07:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

According to the talK page, this page is not needed and should be deleted. For one, the rapper's name is not walkies, but walkie. Marsbar8 ( talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural close the disambiguation page can be combined for both singular and plural forms and the page in question is requested to be moved to "walkie", which if done would make the deletion rationale moot. Therefore this AfD is too soon, considering a different consensus seeking process is underway that could renamed said page to "walkie" or "walkie (disambiguation)". Also, this nomination is malformed and not nominated correctly, so should at least be closed until the name of said page is determined. The nominator can renominate later, after the move request is processed. -- 65.92.244.249 ( talk) 04:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Walkies" appears to be a term for dog-walking, although I don't see any evidence of it in reliable secondary sources. The current disambiguation page serves no discernible purpose. 162 etc. ( talk) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • "Walkies" does indeed refer to dog-walking in UK English; it's defined that way in OED2 with the first example being from 1939. Adam Sampson ( talk) 10:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ongoing RM at talk page. This is a valid dab as it disambiguates several topics with the name. – Uanfala ( talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This word is not mentioned in what it disambiguates. See WP:NOR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm fine with deletion. The hat on Walkie-talkie would just be changed to dab to the rapper. SWinxy ( talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a borderline call between no consensus and delete, but I am ultimately swayed by the final comment in the discussion. Courcelles ( talk) 13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SoniaxFyza

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

These women do not meet any WiKipedia notability criteria, including WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The page was initially referenced only with social media posts of a gossipy nature. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 04:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I have added more reliable sources, and now there are multiple reliable sources on the page. I also think that since they have million(s) of followers, they would be prominent enough to have a page. Kind regards. Dwasirkaram ( talk) 04:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV: the Refinery29 article is an interview so it's not independent on the subject; the SCMP offers little original analysis and ends up quoting the Refinery29; the Cosmopolitan article consists of captioned images of the subject. Plenty lot of tabloid fodder, but no serious coverage.- KH-1 ( talk) 02:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nathan Elams Cockrell

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

Subject is a fraternity founder who died at age 25 in 1859. Subject does not fall under any of the WP:NBIO's "Additional criteria", and is thus governed solely by WP:NBASIC which is functionally equivalent to WP:GNG - which the sourcing isn't even close to reaching. The identified sourcing is limited to passing mentions (refs #1, #3 and #4 as of the time of AfD start) as well as a dead link to the generally unreliable Ancestry.com website (ref #2 as of the time of AfD start). I'm unable to identify further coverage that would contribute towards meeting the GNG. Ljleppan ( talk) 05:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not opposed to a to redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon either. - Ljleppan ( talk) 06:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 07:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and continue to improve the article. The Fraternity and Sorority Project is working on many such pages, and is quite thorough in improvements and citations once we attend to each one. An arbitrary AfD prod, here, after the article had been in place for 17 years is unhelpful - though we appreciate the alert that it needs work. We agree. We have the space, and clarifying which Nathan Cockrell was SAE's founder is valuable to those involved in this organization. It is reasonable to allow articles for founders of the 1,500 or so national academic, or honor, or professional fraternities and societies as the development of a national fraternity is in itself noteworthy. While the founders are often deceased, their notability does not decrease over time. For many of these, thousands of collegiate members seek biographical information about the founders, memorize their names, and seek to understand their legacies. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, please let this process continue. Jax MN ( talk) 00:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. There does not appear to be referencing other than passing mentions. Subjects are not notable because they founded a notable organization (or in this case, was one of eight founding members), there must be significant coverage by reliable sources to prove that they themselves meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Božo Broketa

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

Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

  • Failed V, 404 :: 1.  "Božo Broketa". Croatian Olympic Committee. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 14 September 2017.
  • Database style page :: 2. ^ Profile - AFC-Ajax.info
  • Failed V, no info on subject :: 3. ^ Grad Dubrovnik povećao davanja sportu za osam posto
  • Database style page :: 4. ^ "Player Database". EU-football. Retrieved 25 June 2022.
  • Database style page :: 5. ^ "Božo Broketa". Olympedia. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  • Fails SIGCOV, brief mention, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: "Božo Broketa", Football Lexicon , Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute. Zagreb, 2004.

BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • A quick google search finds e.g. https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/tag/bozo-broketa where Slobodna Dalmacija documented fans commemorating the 100 years of his birth and provided a biography. That's a clear potential for WP:SIGCOV. Did your WP:BEFORE investigation just ignore all non-English sources? -- Joy ( talk) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Croatia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - These deletion nominations of clear topics of interest are getting ridiculous, especially from this user ( User:TimothyBlue), - yet another deletion nomination from a user whose most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever). What makes these nominations more ridiculous is that I easily found [91], [92], [93], and [94], and these are just the sources published recently about a 1950s player (which shows his significance in Yugoslavia) not to mention the many offline sources and the fact that he has a football school named after him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 10:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I feel he passes WP:GNG with these WP:THREE sources [95] [96] [97] Alvaldi ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets GNG per above sources. I don't understand why you're going after the historic players who were actually among the best players of their time, rather than the one-sentence zero/one-source stubs on modern players who had little impact. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This nomination is a waste of editor time; article satisfies WP:GNG particularly through the in-depth piece from Slobodna Dalmacija as well as the dulist.hr piece. I'm also confused by the nominator's evaluation of Miroslav Krleža's Nogometni Leksikon entry; it is not just a brief mention in a statistics database but rather a paragraph summarizing his career which helps count towards SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG, and horrible BEFORE by nominator.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 17:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Mladen Bogdanović

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

Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The circumstances of Bogdanović's death were reported e.g. at Index.hr [98]. This is a pretty classic sign of general notability, it's simply outside the English-speaking realm. We'd probably have to reach for some Hajduk monography to get significant coverage. [99] there's fan coverage that indicates this should exist. -- Joy ( talk) 09:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - These nominations of clear topics of interests are getting ridiculous, especially from this user ( User:TimothyBlue), - yet another deletion nomination from a user whose most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever). What makes these nominations more ridiculous is that I easily found [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107] and these are just the sources published recently about a 1980s player (which shows his significance in Yugoslavia) not to mention the many offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 10:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Source eval for above:
None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV.  //  Timothy ::  talk  14:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TimothyBlue Articles written about an individual decades after his death are hardly an obit. Even so, obits written by independent reliable sources are usually perfectly fine as sources. Regarding the drava.info sources, I was able to access them earlier today so there is probably a technical issue behind the current 404. Alvaldi ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This is accurate, but also largely inconsequential to your argument for deletion, because you're still not disputing the basic factoids such as this player spending four years with Hajduk in the Yugoslav First League with 87 appearances and 11 goals. If this is not inaccurate, the potential is still there and we should not delete the article but instead fix it by finding better sources. -- Joy ( talk) 09:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Some of the coverage is independent of the subject and in-depth, but I'm not sure about reliability. ePodravina.hr is a news portal, but I can't determine if the author is actually a sports journalist. Dalmacijadanas.hr also appears to be a news portal, and again I'm not sure whether the author is a sports journalist. Is someone more familiar with these websites able to weigh in? Jogurney ( talk) 00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, very clearly passes GNG and nominator is being pedantic.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no non-keep !votes. Kinu  t/ c 17:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Deals on Wheels

AfDs for this article:
Deals on Wheels (  | talk | history | 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 appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012 DonaldD23 talk to me 02:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lewis-Smith, Victor (1997-11-12). "In need of some attention". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Freak genetic engineering happens in television, too, as I discovered last night. Cross The Great Antique Hunt (no, not Barbara Cartland) with Top Gear and you get Deals on Wheels (C4), a programme intended to show ordinary motorists how to appraise the mechanical road-worthiness of second-hand cars. ... There's no sign of Stephen Fry's older, fatter, dumber sister (aka Jeremy Clarkson) on this show, just Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton uttering imbecilic phrases like "this is a real people show" — always a sure sign that we're about to be introduced to a stage army of real egocentrics ... After all, they'd managed to sell a very dodgy, shoddy format to a Channel 4 executive, for a huge amount of money. ... Despite four researchers and five directors, this was a cheap-looking and poorly edited show that didn't help potential car buyers one whit, and merely proved that the thick and the greedy deserve each other. If you knew anything about cars, then the programme was superfluous, and if you didn't, it'll be cheaper in the long run to pay a bit more to a reputable car dealer rather than buy a cut-price wreck whose ..."

    2. "Dodgy deals: Richard Sutton and Mike Brewer reveal more home truths about the used car market in Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)". Hull Daily Mail. 1998-07-22. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Deals on Wheels, the popular motor show that tells the truth about the used car market, is back in high gear to help potential buyers get the most out of their money. As well as real life examples of people buying and selling second hand motors, car dealer Mike Brewer goes in search of bargain buys with real cash. Will he make a mint or pick up a rust bucket? Presenter Richard Sutton also reveals a few trade secrets and explains the dynamics and dangers of making a deal. This series gets down to the brass tacks by following the aspirations, hopes, frustrations, loves and hates of people selling cars."

    3. Hamilton, Terry (1998-08-06). "In my view: Terry Hamilton on last night's TV". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Mike Brewer is his name, and selling motors is his game. And watching him is pure entertainment. Car dealer Mike is one of the front men on Deals on Wheels (Channel 4), an imaginative half-hour show all about how to buy or sell a car. ... Deals on Wheels is an interesting diversion from mainstream telly."

    4. O'Donovan, Gerald (1999-08-03). "Today's Choice". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Deals on Weheels: Hot on the heels of the laddish, speed-frenzied Driven, one of the best and most practical car shows returns with facts, figures and money-saving tips for those unfortunates among us who can't just point their cheque book at a Porsche, but have to prowl the second-hand lots and small ads to find a dream set of wheels. Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton man the forecourt, offering clues on how to acquire a good Jaguar XJ for a modest price ..."

    5. "It's a deal! Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton continue to lift the bonnets on more second-hand cars in Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)". Hull Daily Mail. 1998-08-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
    6. "Critic's Choice - Fortune favours the brave". Daily Record. 2000-03-11. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.

      The article notes: "DEALS on Wheels has passed its MOT with flying colours and returns to our screens for a fourth series, giving the low- down on what's hot and what's not in the labyrinth of the used-car market. ... As Deals matures it's clear that Four's attempt to steal some of Top Gear's thunder is working"

    7. "Deals On Wheels - Critics' choice". The Sunday Times. 2000-03-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.

      The article notes: "A fourth series for Channel 4's response to the BBC's Top Gear, although Deals On Wheels has a long way to roll before it earns itself the equivalent amount of clout. Presenters Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton start off with an internet car auction."

    8. Young, Graham (2000-03-14). "TV: Wheel thing - Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.

      The article notes: "Richard Sutton - the comparatively urbane one - and chirpy sparrow Mike Brewer team up once again to cast their beady eyes over the used car market. Such is their infectious appetite for their subject matter, it's little surprise to note that this fourth series will be running for the next ten weeks - and it's set to include motorbikes for the first time, too."

    9. McMullen, Marion (1999-08-03). "TV; Tonight's Highlights". Coventry Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.

      The article notes: "Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton are back with a new series of the motoring programme that takes viewers into the murky world of second hand cars and safely through to the other side."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture (Myanmar). To Piotrus' point, there isn't a strong consensus on the target, but this can be changed as a matter of editorial discretion. There is consensus that there isn't enough to support a standalone article. Star Mississippi 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Myanmar Historical Research Journal

Myanmar Historical Research Journal (  | talk | history | 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 PRODed with reason "Article has a single referenced brief article that may or may not be about this journal (as the text is given as an image, it cannot be pasted into Google Translate). Searching for the English and the Burmese title does not give any results, apart from a few booksellers and a few references to articles on the CVs of a few academics. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by creator with reason posted on article's talk page, arguing that the journal meets NJournals. No support in any reliable sources that their reasoning is correct. For example, 23-something libraries in WorldCat is really very paltry. A smattering of citations on GScholar is too be expected and nothing above normal (instead rather below...) In short, PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) is one of the few reliable academic research sources from Myanmar that is frequently cited by both English-speaking (e.g., Michael Aung-Thwin and Jacques Leider) and Burmese-speaking scholars. This paper for instance, notes: "Besides, the new Myanmar Historical Research Journal has provided a platform for several studies of individual inscriptions," after a long period of academic stasis in the country, following the 1962 Burmese coup d'état. Another journal paper acknowledges MHRJ as the only journal published within the country for Burma/Myanmar studies. Below is my detailed response to Randykitty's assertions:

"Article has a single referenced brief article that may or may not be about this journal (as the text is given as an image, it cannot be pasted into Google Translate)."
This assertion seems to imply that I have somehow mischaracterised the source used in the article (see WP:GOODFAITH). Others who can read Burmese, please feel free to vouch for whether the source ( available here) supports the referenced content in the article.
"Searching for the English and the Burmese title does not give any results, apart from a few booksellers and a few references to articles on the CVs of a few academics. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."
MHRJ has been cited as a source by seminal publications, including The Mists of Ramanna. Frontier Myanmar also references some archaeological findings published in a 1998 issue of the journal ( source). Due to MHRJ's importance in Myanmar's domestic scholarship, all publications of new journal issues are announced and summarised on government-published newspapers. For instance, I found references to MHRJ in this 2011 issue of Kyemon (see page 2 of PDF, bottom right hand column) or more recently, this 2022 issue of Myanma Alin (see page 11 of PDF, top column).
I also want to note that Google is not a reliable means of locating Burmese language sources (nor is it a good proxy for establishing notability for Burmese subjects), because Burmese language content online is not comprehensively indexed by search engines, due to encoding compatibility issues. For instance, those PDFs mentioned above are not encoded in Unicode, meaning that a standard keyword search of the journal's Burmese name "မြန်မာသမိုင်းသုတေသနစာစောင်" within the PDF would not yield any inline results.
WP:N also notes: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." MHRJ is largely a Burmese-language journal that is physically printed, meaning the majority of scholars rely on physical prints (or scans) of this journal or on library holdings. Australian National University mentions MHRJ as a "key journal" for Burma/Myanmar studies ( here).
The broader note I want to make is this: just because it is not extensively referenced online, or is not written in English does not automatically preclude the subject from notability. I'm reminded of WP:WORLDVIEW's section, "Availability of sources may cause bias" and the broader challenge that Wikipedia editors from the Global South face. If anything, the paucity of English language sources re: this journal speaks more to the decades-long isolation of Myanmar's academic community, coupled with the lack of Western interest in Burma/Myanmar studies. -- Hintha 💬 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sorry, but nothing that you write above convinces me. All the articles that you list have only in-passing mentions, none are in-depth. As for the image/text issue, I should have been clearer as I never doubted your good faith. What I meant was that this one paragraph "article" might be about the journal or might be about, for example, an article in the journal, which is not the same thing. In any case, whatever it translates to, that one paragraph cannot be an in-depth analysis of the journal. As for being reliable, the article by Andrew Selth (Modern Burma Studies: A Survey of the Field) in one of just two sentences mentioning this journal notes that it is "subject to censorship by the regime". As for possible bias, there is none. This journal is just held up to our normal criteria and Burmese-language sources are acceptable, but they have to be in-depth and independent in order to prove notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'm pretty sure google translate can process images. Either way it's questionable to attack notability on the basis that you don't personally have access to the cited sources, otherwise people would be able to disregard everything paywalled too. (Though maybe that's where we're headed with the LLM situation anyway.) small jars t c 10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps you can tell us what translation Google Translate gives, because I can't get it to work with an image. In any case, as I said above, a small single paragraph cannot be an in-depth analysis of the journal, so this source doesn't count towards notability. And I have searched using both the English and the Burmese title, but cannot find any sources, behind a paywall or not. I don't know what the "LLM situation" is... Finally, far as I can see, I have not complained about not having access to any sources, I have complained about not finding any sources... -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Apparrantly you need to use "google lens", not translate, but here it is:

    Myanmar History Research Bulletin No. (36) (37) (38)
    Union of Myanmar
    - No. (18) 2019 Myanmar Historical Research Journal Nurbr135) 2015
    The Department of Historical Research and National Library has been publishing Burmese history research bulletins since 1995, and now in 2019, research bulletins No. (36) (37) (38) have been published. Burmese History Research Journal contains the research papers of great scholars of Burmese history. Research papers of teachers from history departments and archeology departments in universities from all over Burma. Historical Research Department's research staff and external researchers from the research of various eras, politics, economy It will be found that research papers related to social issues have been compiled and published. Myanmar History Research Mountain
    The book is available at the Department of Historical Research and National Library, Nay Pyi Taw Phone: 067-408384,
    National Library (Nay Pyi Taw) Phone: 067-418426 and Pyay Road National Museum, Yangon Phone: 01-395190. You can contact 01-395192 to purchase

    small jars t c 23:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks!! I must admit that this is the first time I hear about "Google lens"... In any case, it is as I suspected: this is more an ad than a discussion of the journal and does not contribute to notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: Of course the journal is unavailable online, for many works published by the ministry have not yet been digitalized. But it indeed is prestigious and notable among the Burmese scholars in the fields of Burmese language and history, most of whose works are also—unfortunately—in printed version only. Htanaungg ( talk) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That may be true, but on what should we build our article if there are no (available) sources? And do you have any proof for the assertion that this journal is "prestigious and notable"? -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Randykitty, Hay, Myanmar is a developing country and may not have all resources available online, as it is not as technologically advanced as countries like the United States. 49.237.13.44 ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that the lack of online sources is specifically an strike against notability in AfD. Sources just need to be reliable, whether accessible to a random internet user or not. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 19:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Myanmar Historical Research Journal is an important research paper on Burmese history that is published by the government. It is cited for several historical events and serves as a main source for the "History" subject in Myanmar's higher education curriculum. The journal is also used for state-level education studies. As mentioned above by respected Burmese editor User:Hintha stated " Australian National University mentions MHRJ as a "key journal" for Burma/Myanmar studies. It appears that the Myanmar Historical Research Journal is also utilized as a source for history studies outside of Myanmar. It is questionable to judge the importance of this journal for Myanmar, particularly when Burmese editors are underrepresented on the English-language Wikipedia platform. Clearly a WP:IDONTLIKE on Myanmar. I am shocked that the nominator is rejecting all comments, even though the Myanmar Historical Research Journal is an invaluable source on the History of Myanmar. 49.237.13.44 ( talk) 19:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
It is important to note that since you are not Burmese, you may not have a complete understanding of the intricacies of writing in the Burmese language. However, there are a few Burmese editors who are better positioned to determine the notability of subjects related to our country. It is important to acknowledge that we always act with integrity and honesty. 49.237.13.44 ( talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I resent your suggestion that I have something against Myanmar and the aspersions you throw on my "integrity and honesty". Please comment on the issues, not the persons. See WP:AGF. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
[108] - "The State History, Myanmar Chronicles and Historical Values" research symposium was organized in preparation for the release of the latest issue of the Myanmar Historical Research Journal. The event was attended by Burmese culture ministers, prominent historians, members of the Myanmar Historical Commission, and officials from the National Literary sector. The participants discussed their respective research works. Moreover, [109] The Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) serves as a reference for the Burmese Encyclopedia, highlighting its importance as a source of information for Burmese history. 49.237.13.44 ( talk) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I just found the book review by Naypyidaw National Library that highlights the significance of the Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) in the field of Burmese history. The Department of Historical Research and National Library has been publishing Burmese historical research bulletins since 1995, and the MHRJ is featured in the bulletins numbered 36, 37, and 38. These bulletins contain research papers by prominent Myanmar historians as well as teachers and researchers from history and archeology departments across the country. The papers cover various eras, politics, and the economy, making the MHRJ an important legacy resource for scholars of Burmese history. See source by Myanmar Digital Newspaper. In the source, The Naypyidaw National Library provides book reviews for numerous legacy Burmese books. 49.237.13.44 ( talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but none of those sources is about the journal and they don't show notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Ummm! What the hell? The sources I posted above, are they not valid? Pls tell me what is your problem?? 49.237.43.169 ( talk) 12:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per Hintha's detailed, well-documented reasons. Just because something is not easily searchable on Google doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. Likewise with ISBN or ISSNs or being included in WorldCat. But this isn't the first time and won't be the last. Someone challenged the Rakhine Razawin Thit article back in 2014 -- see the Talk page. Hybernator ( talk) 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I absolutely disagree with the last two "keep" !votes. Yes, "just because it is not extensively referenced online, or is not written in English does not automatically preclude the subject from notability". And, yes, "Just because something is not easily searchable on Google doesn't mean it's not noteworthy". However, even in those cases, we need sources. Without sources, these assertions are just that: assertions. Just saying that something is notable/respected/noteworthy/etc does not make it so. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I can die with this comment 🫡😂. Burmese editors have provided sources above. So how much do you need? 49.237.43.169 ( talk) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You actually have to look at the sources. They're not independent, not about the journal, or just minor mentions. The rest is hand waving.-- Randykitty ( talk) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I share Randy's concerns. At the same time, so many of our other journal articles have the same problems (of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF...). Which is why we have WP:NJOURNAL, but it hard to see how this is met. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Lin Fangling

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

Doesn't meet notability guideline ( WP:NBAD) to have an article. zoglophie 14:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and China. zoglophie 14:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • CommentUnfortunately, the article is not pass WP:NBAD at this point of time. And there are only 2 references in the article, one of which only lists the results of the competition, and the other reference link has expired. So my idea is to delete this post for now. HE YUNONG ( talk) 07:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and HE YUNONG. Yup the article is toosoon for now. If Lin Fangling won international title in senior level (even though outside the NBAD), we can considered the article to be keep. Stvbastian ( talk) 08:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Despite not meeting NBAD, I still believe it has some degree of notability as a two-event World Junior Champion. Maybe move it to draftspace and see if more sources can be added. Timothytyy ( talk) 04:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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 03:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group

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

A noble organization, but one that seems to fail WP:NORG. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Disinvestment from Iran

Disinvestment from Iran (  | talk | history | 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 think this is overstating some WP:NOTNEWS content. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 01:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. No great single redirect target, so if someone wants to pick one and create it, go ahead. Courcelles ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Cow Hug Day

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

Majority of coverage is from the same couple days of unsustained relevance all reporting on the same limited information. Does not look likely to have lasting notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Events, and India. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom and WP:SUSTAINED. Really just an attempt by a single organization to create a named "day" that failed to gain traction with a small brief burst of news coverage for a very localized thing. KoA ( talk) 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment
  • I am not too keen on retaining the article at least in present form but I have following observations.
  • WP:BEFORE → B.5 →

    Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating.

Returning back to same AfD discussion (Just 40 days in this case) can be tiring to at least some of the participants from previous discussion.
  • WP:AFD in top box first sentence says

    "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate.

    could we not really take some effort to find out if reasonable RS is available for 'Cow cuddling' and could we not discuss possibilities of renaming the article specially there was no consensus for deletion in an AfD that closed just 40 days ago.
Bookku ( talk)
I didn't check for a previous AfD before starting this one which I suppose is my mistake. However, that previous AfD being closed as keep instead of no consensus was a mistake which I think justifies restarting the discussion, especially when it's been over a month. As for the cow cuddling section, if you want a new article under that name then go make one. The subject of this article is what's under discussion, not the single sentence that someone chose to (excuse the pun) beef the article up a bit with. Whether there should be an article about cow cuddling is an entirely separate question that shouldn't be discussed here. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I didn't check the last AfD either at first, but I have to agree. Even without the "cancellation", when the article was created (and the AfD itself) was too soon to establish notability. That's why I mentioned it violating WP:SUSTAINED above. Lots of sources, but just brief bursts as that guideline specifically describes that really wasn't significant coverage anyways, but moreso Human-interest story.
I looked through the last AfD though now, and the keeps were extremely superficial that were textbook WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments that shouldn't be made at AfD. The merges also didn't really seem like a viable option (and still don't) because this really was a blip on the radar in terms of WP:DUE too or basically a WP:NEOLOGISM. The close itself really didn't indicate consensus for keep either, but was really written as no consensus when you read the text. There just wasn't consensus to delete the article then, but some closers don't differentiate between no consensus and keep because it functionally results in the same outcome (i.e., article remains). KoA ( talk) 14:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Okay, you can't call it an "annual event" when it's only been held once – no, not at all, apparently! Just passing news briefs for something silly, no lasting significance. At best, merge to Animal Welfare Board of India. Reywas92 Talk 04:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Actually, that merge suggestion would probably be better than deleting. The target seems right for it. I'll support that as an ATD. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 06:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
If it were a term that was more apparent as to how it related to the organization, then a merge/redirect could make sense. That said, we're dealing with a pretty vague term that likely wouldn't have WP:DUE to include in the organization article. It would instead fall under WP:R#DELETE #8 If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym. . . It would just seem like poor redirect quality control without a clearer reason for a redirect. KoA ( talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
One, redirects are cheap. Two, the page views from February were huge. If it ever spikes again then I think it would hurt to have nothing to return. And three, I don't find DUE really applies here. The concern of DUE is with fairly representing controversial viewpoints, and I don't think there's anything controversial about acknowledging the existence of this silly holiday. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 10:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirects are cheap, but easily become problematic if not used carefully. It's too generic of a phrase to tie to this one group. DUE applies everywhere as it's policy, and a synonym for it is whether something is WP:NOTEWORTHY to include in an article (not to be confused with notability). What you are suggesting about future use would be WP:CRYSTAL. Ever indication right now is that it was a small flash in the pan that stopped in coverage that day really. If something revives, then it can be reconsidered at that time. KoA ( talk) 21:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment for closing admin: Since there is ongoing back-and-forth over a potential merger/redirect target, I feel I should emphasize that despite that, nobody is arguing to keep the article independent. If it comes down to it, which it very well could, I am still in support of deletion and I don't think anyone else here is opposed to that necessarily, so that would be a much better option than closing as no consensus. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 10:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge or delete. Either way, it isn't enough to have an article. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 06:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 03:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nakhalpara Hossain Ali High School

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

Not enough in-depth coverage about this school to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 00:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

OpenElement

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

No evidence of notability. Existing article contains one reference to the subject's website, Was PRODed, but the template was removed without addressing concerns. Greenman ( talk) 10:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 15:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucy Natasha

Lucy Natasha (  | talk | history | 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 rejected multiple times at WP:AFC, most of the sources in the article are from gossip sites/unreliable sources that do not indicate notability Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randyjoel. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 13:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
You said most of the articles but not all the articles. I went through them amd most of them are not gossip as you described. There is a controversial in some of the articles as well thats the whole point of an article unless otherwise. Ndizibanana ( talk) 15:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Some of the sources are not reliable but some of them as well are reliable sources and they show notability as she is a notable pastor . Machakusi ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete "pastor gets a tattoo" is gossipy fluff, nothing we can use for notability. Rest is run of the mill coverage. She isn't the national leader of a church, simply one of many preaching the word. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randyjoel. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 13:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: i also see that the subject had multiple links on BBC , Aljazeera and cnn but these links seem to be archived or something not . See these links.
  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/5/9/meet-rev-lucy-natasha-kenyas-most-glamorous-preacher
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58657275
3. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/22/africa/lucy-natasha-kenya-preacher-spc-intl/index.html Ndizibanana ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Please send archive link. I am unable to see this pages in archive.org. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
i couldn't find it either but i found those links hanging around only links without content. .. but also i have been able to cite more reference and change few things around it hope now is settled for main Space . Thanks Ndizibanana ( talk) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I have moved the article to draft space for further improvement Ndizibanana ( talk) 23:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I have added more references that shows notability from different links . Kindly check again. Regards Ndizibanana ( talk) 08:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: The added reference seems fine with me Kibaka ( talk) 15:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep The subject is notable Tazamajuu ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_10&oldid=1150485919"