From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 21 November 23 >
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 no consensus‎. There has been reasonable arguments made on both sides of the discussion and neither side clearly prevails, on weight of numbers nor weight of arguments. Stifle ( talk) 10:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Nkosazana Daughter

Nkosazana Daughter (  | 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)

Claims in the lead are that she charted number 30 on "Top albums" but the reference shows this to be Spotify, not Billboard. The other charting such as "number 3 in South Africa" is also streaming and not a major chart so would fail WP:NMUSICIAN in that regard. WP:GNG is also not met as while she has done some collaborations, the references are mentions, routine, blogs, or otherwise non-reliable sources. CNMall41 ( talk) 07:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Is this a song by Nkosazana Daughter or a collab? Being on a song that received such status does not make everyone associated with it notable. Otherwise, we could create pages for everyone involved. I believe the certification for the song is for the main artist. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
For the "major music award" in #8 of the guideline, I searched the WP:NMUSIC noticeboard but could not locate the ones listed on the page. I started a discussion to determine if these are major awards. Note that I did not inquire about the South African Music Awards" as this page shows "pending" as opposed to "nominated" or "won."-- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As for awards, Soundcity should be enough. However, I think it's TOOEARLY as I've been looking for SiGCOV for some time now, and ultimately couldn't find any. Subject is mostly on an article for featured song(s), outside non-RS gossip, and that Mpura and DJ Maphorisa put her on, she has nothing. Released an album mid-2023 (which fails #5 per WP:NMUSICBIO because it is self-released), featuring guest appearances from big names across Africa but somehow didn't make the news, chart, receive nominations, nor certificates. Until SIGCOV is presented, I'm leaning towards weak delete. dxneo ( talk) 04:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing out the awards as I was thinking Grammies, MTV Music Awards, etc. and wasn't considering international awards prior to my nomination. Let's hope we can generate feedback from the talk page of WP:NMUSIC. She obviously isn't your run of the mill WP:GARAGEBAND based on some verifiable content so maybe the awards will allow the page to get over the hurdle. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
CNMall41, I think the problem here is only SIGCOV, WP:MUSICBIO states that "Subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", emphasizing may. This is a close call (as she was nominated in not one but three award ceremonies), which I can't can't really decide to either weak keep or weak delete. I guess we will see what other researchers present as time goes by. dxneo ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per Dxneo, satisfies #8 per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Even if she satisfies MUSICBIO, I couldn't find independent, significant coverage in RSes, and I agree with CNMall's assessment of the references in the article. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She's a featured vocalist on two platinum-certified songs and a featured vocalist on a song that spent five weeks at #1 on TOSAC ( [1]). We are clearly talking about a musician of some prominence in her milieu, and a musician of comparable importance in any country in the Northern Hemisphere would easily sail through this proceeding. Chubbles ( talk) 06:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay let's look at it this way. WP:MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they at least meet one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself:
Subject has had a fair share news and passing mentions here & there.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart:
I could not find any recording(s) where the subject is credited as the primary artist that charted. However as a featured artist she has charted multiple times here peaking at no. 1 on The Official South African Charts and here on Billboard South Africa songs with "Sofa Silahlane" by Master KG, and again peaking at no. 1 here with "Dali Nguwe" also by Master KG, and that is just to mention a few.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country:
There is no record of the subject receiving any sort of musical certification as a primary artist, as a featured individual she received not one but two with "Nomathemba" and "Yini Sdakwa".
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country:
Subject had a show outside of her birth country in Zimbabwe, not sure if that counts.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable):
Clearly it is non-negotiable that the subject ultimately fails this criterion as they released only one studio album of which is self-released.
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award:
Subject was nominated for Soundcity MVP Awards Festival (and also as a featured artist) here, and for SA Dance Music Awards here, and for two categories at the SA Amapiano Awards here
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album:
As a vocalist often featured by record producers, she performs quite a lot. She performed on Channel O multiple times here and here, not sure if this counts.
And while doing rounds on this site I noticed not only Nkosazana Daughter "claims" notability through their collaborative works, but also Nia Pearl and Kyla Reid, the latter featured on " One Dance" by Drake. In conclusion I think it's safe to keep and rewrite the article to maintain neutrality in accordance to our guidelines. dxneo ( talk) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
You say "she's a featured vocalist on two platinum-certified songs and a featured vocalist on a song that spent five weeks at #1." Would this mean any performer on a #1 song would qualify under WP:NMUSIC? My contention is that if she is truly a "musician of some prominence," the media would have taken notice. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
On #1 of my analysis I did say she had a fair share of news coverage and yes I believe the media noticed her as the subject contributed a lot in the music industry and I think if RiSA was up to speed with certifications, Nkosazana Daughter would be featured on more than just two Platinum singles. One thing we always leave out is that even if the artist is not credited as a primary artist, the song is still theirs too. dxneo ( talk) 21:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry for any confusion, but the question was posed to Chubbles. The inline may not have been accurate. I do have a question about "even if the artist is not credited as a primary artist, the song is still theirs too." Are you saying we consider this for notability purposes on Wikipedia? I have never seen it applied this way but would help me in future reviews if you can point me to a discussion or specific policy. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My apologies, ping him. Please don't put words in my mouth, I think it depends on the coverage the individual gets. Again look at " One Dance", Kyla Reid's " Do You Mind" (released in 2008) was non-notable til it was sampled by Drake and Kyla wasn't notable too because her article and the song's article were created in 2016 subsequent to the release of "One Dance" of which she was featured on, we all know the charting history and certifications of the song. Looking at Kyla's discography, she didn’t contribute much to the industry and her lead statement states that she's best know for "One Dance". dxneo ( talk) 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
No apologies necessary. As far as putting words in your mouth, I do not see how that happened. I apologize if you took it that way, but I simply asked a question about a statement you made so please WP:AGF. As far as the example, Kyla is a false equivalence. She's notable as she charted for " Do You Mind," a song she both wrote and recorded. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Her song was released in 2008 and charted in 2009, please bring SIGCOV from that time frame. Anyway, that's off the topic as the subject of the matter pass #1, #4, #8 and #10 per WP:MUSICBIO and #1 per WP:ANYBIO despite you clinging on "featured artist". dxneo ( talk) 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I was actually discussing your contention but now you are becoming bitey even after asking you to AGF. Your contention is that she is notable for a collab when in fact she is notable for charting, hence why your argument is a false equivalence. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Her #3 album is questionable as I could not verify it and the citations did not support. However, she has more than enough news coverage to meet notability. See 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Royal88888 ( talk) 08:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I honestly thought this would be closed by now because I don't see why Nkosazana Daughter's success through features shouldn't count when it states here that Jay-Z tied with Kanye West for most Grammy wins through " Drunk in Love" by Beyoncé, keep in mind that Jay Z is not the primary artist on that song. But then again, the subject still pass WP:MUSICBIO through her awards nominees and a fair share of news coverage. Oh and logic also applies to music producers such as Southside, TM88, and 808 Mafia just to mention a few as they are not primary artists and not even featured artists but they are notable for the recordings they worked on. dxneo ( talk) 09:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
This is the same logic you used above for another artist. Jay-Z would be notable outside of that collaboration based on his charted music and significant coverage. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
CNMall41, so now notability through features is out of the picture? Great. Like we mentioned above, the subject has a fair share of news coverage, please stop hiding under what I am referencing/giving example of and give evidence as to why you think the subject isn't notable, until then, I'm out. dxneo ( talk) 19:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not what I said. I don't know the reason for your contentiousness so again I would ask that you assume good faith. You made a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (twice) and I pointed out why those arguments did not apply to this situation. I have already stated my reasoning for deletion several times and even reached out for feedback on the award (so far, only one response). If it helps, I will reach out to WP:RSN as I have never heard of the other references being cited here. If they can be used for notability, then by all means the subject would pass WP:GNG.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41 Consensus already reached here and I am wondering why you insist on having the request open for farther weeks. Notability is not fame nor noteworthiness. Notability is a construct. As per @ Chubbles, @ Dxneo,@ Royal88888, subject has made coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject which simply means that the subject is notable. It doesn't matter why it's notable, once it's notable it's notable. It is now two weeks and yet the request is not closed simply because you are looking for more "Delete" votes. Currently the votes are: Keep = 4, Delete=1. Just observing, not personal. Peace and kind regards. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 15:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It is good to be checking up on here. Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 15:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I find it puzzling how you ping everyone who supports your view, yet leave out those who have not. I am also not sure why you want to WP:INSULT. Which by the way, is more of one towards @ Rosguill: who is the admin who extended the discussion. I am not "looking for more delete votes" as you say. AfD is not about vote count, it is about consensus.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
CNMall41, no one is insulting no admin, since you always look for excuses he should have mentioned Voorts. At this point the best thing is to tell the AfD run its course and not interact with you as sources have been presented, to avoid further relisting(s). dxneo ( talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I was accused of keeping this open because of looking for more votes. I never requested it to remain open. An admin relisted. Not sure how the user missed that. I am also not sure why you continue to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND but it needs to stop. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41 I am not accussing you of anything. I meant that all this AfD is taking time to get closed and is being relisted because discussion looks like it's still going on, but it's not. This is you due to not understanding what other editors are pointing to. You have even questioned Soundcity MVP Award and Basadi in Music Award if they are notable awards by opening a discussion on Notability talk page (which is, of course, not bad). Every country has its own national awards that are notable to it. So Basadi in Music Award and other such awards are major and most prestigous awards in South Africa. Best-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 06:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:BLP is the policy that applies to this article, and it requires strong sourcing. The sources above are mainly name mentions in lists, I did a source eval table of the first 8 cites above, the remaining are more of the same promos and mentions in lists:
Comments Source
Name mentioned in list https://thenativemag.com/tg-omori-soundcity-mvp-2023/
Name mentioned in list https://www.iol.co.za/sunday-tribune/entertainment/dlala-thukzin-kabza-de-small-and-skye-wanda-lead-2023-sa-dance-music-awards-nominations-7c695b4e-8991-4313-83ad-589020e2bca1
Name mentioned in list https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/sa-amapiano-awards-2023-all-nominees
Info about album, nothing WP:SIGCOV about subject https://www.risa.org.za/website/certification/certifications/?artist=Nkosazana+Daughter&title=&label=
Promo interview https://www.timeslive.co.za/amp/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-08-28-listen--amapiano-helped-me-find-my-voice--nkosazana-daughter-reflects-on-her-career/
Name mention, no WP:SIGCOV https://theofficialsacharts.co.za/the-hottest-local-music-radio-chart-in-south-africa-week-15/
Name mentioned in list https://www.risa.org.za/website/certification/certifications/?artist=Nkosazana+Daughter&title=&label=
Promo from publisher, fails WP:IS https://groove-africa.com/apple-musics-latest-africa-rising-recipient-is-amapiano-singer-songwriter-nkosazana-daughter/
I stopped adding because it is plain the keep votes above do not understand WP:BLP or MUSICBIO.
Comments based on MUSICBIO are depending on a "may be notable" guideline and sources do not bear this out and WP:BLP applies. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are found from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth (a mention in a list is not indepth SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  08:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Please do well to not try and make us look like we don't know what we're doing here, after all we have created multiple clean BLPs, and what is it that we don't understand about WP:MUSICBIO? That the subject has made the news ever since her breakthrough? Or that she is an award-winning/nominated individual? See this and this all RS (green sources), from what's written there and other other source (including that she has passed MUSICBIO) tell me that you can't sum up SIGCOV. Saying we don't understand WP:N is a low blow. MUSICBIO say may be notable if they pass at least ONE..., how many did the subject pass? dxneo ( talk) 11:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between BLP which is a policy and MUSICBIO which in a guideline. Your opinion that this passes MUSICBIO is moot, because sources do not indicate this meets BLP policy. There is an explanatory essay at Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays; it should be clear that policy takes precedence over guidelines. You also need to read WP:BLUDGEON.  //  Timothy ::  talk  12:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
TimothyBlue, where did you get the sources you just reviewed? What would SIGCOV be doing in music charts ( theofficialsacharts.co.za), awards nominations ( www.iol.co.za, thenativemag.com, and musicinafrica.net) and recordings certifications ( risa.org.za)? Come on now, so basically you did not review anything. There's not a single RS about the subject in your review other than TimesLIVE of which you lied and called promo because its an interview where as TimesLIVE is a RS. My worry here is that you did not search hard enough to find simple two sources I just mentioned above and the fact that the subject has been making the news ever since. Again, combining all the sources we mentioned above, one cam sum up SIGCOV and possibly produce a stub and most likely a start article. dxneo ( talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And how did you reach the conclusion that the last source on your review is promo? dxneo ( talk) 13:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
...and why did you review the same RiSA link twice? dxneo ( talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP is policy, it requires strong sourcing. It requires WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I've stated I do not think the sources above meet this requirement. The sources you recently provided, [2], [3], [4], the subject is named in a list, this is not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. [5] is your strongest source, however since the source is also the publisher of the music and they are promoting them as an artist there is a problem with WP:IS, however I recognize others might disagree, as they have above. If you provide sources that are independent of the subject WP:IS, meeting WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and indepth and you will have my keep vote. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ' //  Timothy ::  talk  14:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The chart data can be sourced sufficiently according to WP:V (policy) and it is not particularly a WP:BLP concern. The analysis here suggests that living musicians must meet a much higher notability standard (BLP, almost NCORP as worded here) than dead ones (who would just have to meet WP:MUSIC). I don't think that's a healthy way to think about notability. Chubbles ( talk) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand others disagree, I was surprised I couldn't find anything with WP:SIGCOV, which is why I think this is probably just TOOSOON. I seriously doubt this discussion will result in a delete.  //  Timothy ::  talk  15:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
TimothyBlue, what did you mean by "the source is also the publisher"? You still did not answer my above questions regarding reliability and promotional concerns about this source. Your review is not about the subject at all, awards/noms, certifications, and charts does not cover the significance of the musician which cancels out that review. dxneo ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Detailed analyses of the sources claimed to provide SIGCOV would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:49, 22 November 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 or more specifically there is a consensus against deleting the article. There is no consensus as between keeping or merging, but we do not need to have that discussion here, anyone wishing to take it forward can use the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Truism

Truism (  | 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 believe this article fails WP:NOTDICT, and I don't see any potential for expansion. I soft-redirected it a few months ago to Wiktionary's truism entry, but this has now been reverted and contested, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I suggested WP:AFD for this, in lieu of unilaterally blanking it and soft-redirecting it to Wiktionary, since there was objection to doing the latter. I didn't mean to take it to AfD immediately without a proper WP:BEFORE effort. In a matter of seconds, I can find sources addressing truisms as a concept of "beliefs that are widely shared and rarely questioned", including in "values", at the intersection of psychology and cultural anthropology [6]; truisms as a form of logic fallacy because "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago" [7]; a poetical device used by writers like Alexander Theroux [8] and relatedly a visual-arts theme [9] and some works that straddle the line between written and visual arts [10] [11]; a concept in US constitutional law about the value of the 10th Amendment (which seems to be a truism on the surface but which has had marked but perhaps shifting real-world policy impact) [12] [13] [14] [15] (these may not be neutral sources, but make a politico-legal argument that could be given WP:DUE mention); as a category of institutionalized assumptions or rules of thumb in medicine which long gone unchallenged until recently [16]; as a subject in the philosophy of realism and anti-realism, pertaining to provability or verification of events or claims [17]; some humor-related meanings [18]; in software engineering, "broadly-applicable principles of software construction ... that ... may not apply in specific cases" but which may be testable with model-based assessment of methods [19]; and so on. These are all just from the first page of general Google search results on truism -wikipedia -wiki -blog -forum -dictionary, and I'm sure even better material could be found with Google Scholar or some other journal search. I thus lean keep on this, because it is very clear that more than just a dictionary entry can be written about the subject (and for that matter already has been, since our presently stub article already cover a philosophy usage pertaining to statements that are true but untestable for lack of contextual conditions or support, and the concept's relationship to humorous lapalissades). It's completely normal for Wikipedia to have articles, even short ones, on rhetorical devices, features of language, types (or failures) of reasoning, and classifiers of writing, and truism qualifies as all of those, in different usage senses, not all of which will be captured by even the most robust dictionary (which Wiktionary generally is not).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did in fact perform a BEFORE search, and of course the word "truism" crops up in a lot of sources. I just can't envisage what an encyclopedia article about truisms would look like based on the sources I've seen. None of the examples you provide are actually about truisms – they are about values, or the 10th Amendment, or medicine, or software engineering, etc. (Your second link, "Truth and Truism", comes closest, but despite the title I think it's really talking about self-evidence, which has its own article.) I don't see how these sources can be put together into an article that doesn't still boil down to a simple definition and a list of examples. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Self-evidence as an alternative to deletion. These are essentially the same concept, with different names in different contexts (rhetoric, epistemology). Cnilep ( talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge as per Cnilep. Does not seem to have enough content to justify a stand along article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
1. https://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
The article states: "How do you argue a truism? Pretty much the same way as a tautology. You state that the case is a truism, explain how it is a truism, and why this means the case should be rejected. For example, to show that “genocide is bad” is a truism, you would argue: “Saying that genocide is bad is a truism. No one disagrees with this. The government case makes it virtually impossible to argue against their case. You should dismiss the government case as being a truism unworthy of debate.” Follow up your truism argument with your own definitions and explanations of why these definitions provide a fairer ground for debate. Be wary of making a “truism” argument. Much of the community does not think that a truism means a government should lose. Usually, if a government runs a fairly common sense case, you can press for details about implementation so you can make arguments about the way in which they address or solve the problem they cite or make topicality arguments based on how their advocacy falls within the words of the resolution."
2. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/801203/pdf
The article states: "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago. An anti-discursive instance of discourse, the concept of the truism casts doubt on the existence of non-truistic truth, yet it would appear that truth does little to push it away."
3. https://www.itemonline.com/opinion/truisms-can-be-untrue/article_b995b4a1-5e58-5b6c-aaca-88374f06a4be.html
The article states: "A truism is a statement considered to be profound and accepted as truth. Like most people, I too accepted them as little pearls of wisdom and many found their way into my vocabulary. However, the wisdom of many truisms that have lived through countless generations has begun to lose the luster of truth."
4. Harris. A Philosophical Treatise on the Nature and Constitution of Man (1876)
The article states: "The introduction of truisms and falsisms into our field of view brings us to the root of the difficulty about the truth and falsehood of statements, and enables us to dispose of it. For to regard a statement as true is merely to ignort the difference between it and a truism -- to regard it as equivalent to a truism ; and the conception of the truth of a statement is thus simply one as to the equivalence of two statements one of which is a truism."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Truism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू ( talk) 03:27, 29 November 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 23:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Marija Goranović

Marija Goranović (  | 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 subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the Paralympic athlete, law student, or quiz competition winner, all of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:30, 22 November 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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Avature

Avature (  | 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 cannot find coverage that demonstrates that WP:CORP is met. Note that I have removed various sources noting awards but all of them where from the same organisation giving the award i.e. not independent coverage. SmartSE ( talk) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The information that is left in the article seems to be found on their company website, which makes sense for that kind of basic information.
Regarding coverage to demonstrate WP:CORP I found several independent articles that mention Avature as an HR tech company (see references below). Avature is a well-established company and their article page goes back to 2012. Based on the above and the WP:ORGCRIT provided, we should keep this page.
1. This year, an industry expert mentions Avature released a new product that debuts them in the training market: https://joshbersin.com/2023/10/avature-enters-training-market-with-focus-on-informal-learning/
2. An announcement that mentions a partnership between Avature and LinkedIn: https://www.hrtech.sg/news/avature-integrates-with-linkedin-recruiter/
3. Dimitri Boylan, the CEO mentioned in the article, was named in the best HR tech influencer list: https://talentculture.com/top-20-best-hr-tech-influencers-of-2022/
4. In 2020 the same industry expert Josh Bersin, mentioned Avature as being adaptable HR Tech software: https://joshbersin.com/2020/10/the-new-world-of-adaptable-hr-software-avature-sets-the-pace/
5. This mention technically fails CORPDEPTH, but it mentions Avature as an HR technology vendor of Delta and Walmart: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/delta-walmart-use-hr-technology-stay-agile-during-pandemic.aspx TechieArg ( talk) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)— TechieArg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:NORG. To the points above, being "well-established" isn't what shows notability on Wikipedia. As for the sources: (1) is a niche WordPress blog that, when taking WP:AUD into consideration, isn't sufficient for notability whether this person's blog is reliable or not. (2) is a press release, and so is not independent and does not contribute to notability. (3) is also a press release but notability is not inherited, so if the article showed notability for the individual, that notability does not transfer to any and every company they work for. However, even if it's wasn't a press release, such lists are specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage. (4) is the same niche WordPress blog as 1. (5) is indeed trivial coverage. I wasn't able to find anything online that would show notability either. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 22 November 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 2023 ASEAN Para Games#Sports. Viable ATD that preserves history should sourcing become accessible. Star Mississippi 02:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Goalball at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games

Goalball at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games (  | 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 indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A "stats only" article with only one source, a stats only entry on a website. North8000 ( talk) 17:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I just recently found the partially archived evidence of Goalball at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games. These are the only ones I could find at this point.
Men's tournament:
[20] [21] [22] [23]
Women's tournament
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Carl DR 1995 ( talk) 06:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Those appear to be stats only.....is the a GNG type source in there? North8000 ( talk) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete just a list of results with no third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Someone familiar with ASEAN languages and sources might be able to find more regional news coverage such as [30], [31]. Bennv123 ( talk) 08:37, 25 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ LibStar ( talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Berlin

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Berlin (  | 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:ORG. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 23:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cheung, Gary (2009-01-05). "Berlin office finally set to open". South China Morning Post. ProQuest  266652158. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "The Hong Kong government will finally open a trade promotion office in Berlin in the first half of the year, more than three years after the plan was announced. The delay stems from the lengthy process for the German government to complete the relevant legislative procedures and formalities. Lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah was disappointed at the delay, saying Hong Kong may have missed a lot of business and trade opportunities. ... A four-member team, led by director-designate of the Economic and Trade Office in Berlin, Stephen Wong Kai-yi, was established in April 2007 to prepare for the opening of the Berlin office. The team is currently working at Hong Kong's economic and trade office in Brussels."

    2. Hung, Denise (2007-04-07). "Senior lawyer to head trade office in Berlin". South China Morning Post. ProQuest  266589179. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "For the first time, a Hong Kong government lawyer is to head an overseas trade office. Senior Department of Justice official Stephen Wong Kai-yi will soon depart for Berlin, where a trade promotion office is about to open. Mr Wong, a former deputy solicitor-general, has been named director of the Hong Kong and Economic and Trade Office, which is scheduled to open some time after June 30. The new office is an effort by the government to expand Hong Kong's ties with nine eastern European countries."

    3. Wong, Miriam (2011-04-05). Berning, Sarah (ed.). "Hong Kong trade office opens in Berlin". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "The HKETO first started its operation in Berlin in March 2009 upon the promulgation of an order of the German Federal Government. The then Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, announced the HKETO would practically have "the same rights of privileges and immunities as the diplomatic representation of a state", by virtue of the "one country, two systems" principle implemented after Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997."

    4. Peng, Dawei 彭大偉 (2019-02-22). "港駐柏林經貿辦舉辦招待會 推廣粵港澳大灣區最新合作機遇" [The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin held a reception. Promote the latest cooperation opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area]. Seng Pou [ zh (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "中國香港特別行政區政府駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處當地時間21日晚在柏林舉行農曆豬年新春招待會。出席招待會的300余名德國各界人士和各國駐德使節瞭解了香港特區發展現狀、與德國的經貿合作以及“一帶一路”和粵港澳大灣區等最新合作機遇。 ... 設立于2009年的香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處負責促進香港與中歐和東歐地區的奧地利、捷克、德國、匈牙利、波蘭、斯洛伐克、斯洛文尼亞和瑞士等八個國家的雙邊經貿關係。"

      From Google Translate: "The Economic and Trade Office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government of China in Berlin held a Lunar New Year reception for the Year of the Pig in Berlin on the evening of the 21st local time. More than 300 German people from all walks of life and envoys from various countries stationed in Germany attended the reception. They learned about the development status of the Hong Kong SAR, economic and trade cooperation with Germany, and the latest cooperation opportunities such as the “Belt and Road Initiative” and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. ... The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin, established in 2009, is responsible for promoting bilateral economic and trade relations between Hong Kong and eight countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland."

    5. Peng, Dawei 彭大伟 (2019-12-04). Li, Peiyun 李霈韵 (ed.). "香港特区政府驻柏林代表：对"一国两制"有坚定信心 冀以对话化解乱局" [Representative of the Hong Kong SAR Government in Berlin: We have firm confidence in "one country, two systems" and hope to resolve the chaos through dialogue] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "香港驻柏林经济贸易办事处设立于2009年，是中国香港特别行政区政府的官方代表机构。李志鹏于2018年8月起出任香港驻柏林经济贸易办事处处长。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin was established in 2009 and is the official representative office of the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Bill Li Chi-pang [ zh has served as Director of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin since August 2018."

    6. Jiang, Lin 蔣琳, ed. (2020-09-25). "駐柏林經貿辦支持香港電影參與蘇黎世電影節" [ETO Berlin supports Hong Kong films to participate in Zurich Film Festival]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "第16屆蘇黎世電影節於9月14日至10月4日舉行，香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處再度贊助活動，設立「香港之窗」環節，放映4部香港電影。"

      From Google Translate: "The 16th Zurich Film Festival was held from September 14 to October 4. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin once again sponsored the event and set up a "Hong Kong Window" segment to screen four Hong Kong films."

    7. Au, Lai-sing 區禮城 (2022-06-04). "香港駐柏林經貿辦舉行港產片劇照展覽　訴說25年來本土電影變遷" [The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin holds an exhibition of stills from Hong Kong films to tell the story of the changes in local films over the past 25 years] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "為慶祝香港特別行政區成立25周年，香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處正舉辦名為「光影浪潮：香港電影新動力」的香港電影劇照展覽。駐柏林經貿辦是香港特別行政區政府在德國、奧地利、捷克共和國、匈牙利、波蘭、斯洛伐克共和國、斯洛文尼亞和瑞士在商業關係和其他經貿事務上的官方代表機構。"

      From Google Translate: To celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin is organizing an exhibition of Hong Kong film stills titled "Tide of Light and Shadow: New Power for Hong Kong Films". The ETO Berlin is the official representative office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Switzerland on commercial relations and other economic and trade matters."

    8. "香港特區成立25周年 柏林掀起光影浪潮" [The 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR, Berlin set off a wave of light and shadow]. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-06-03. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處（駐柏林經貿辦）周四(2日)（柏林時間）以名為「光影浪潮：香港電影新動力」的香港電影劇照展覽開展一系列慶祝香港特別行政區（香港特區）成立二十五周年的活動。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin (ETO Berlin) launched a series of celebrations for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) on Thursday (2nd) (Berlin time) with an exhibition of Hong Kong film stills titled "Wave of Light and Shadow: New Power for Hong Kong Films" ) activities for the 25th anniversary of its founding."

    9. "駐柏林經貿辦在華沙舉辦電影放映會" [The Economic and Trade Office in Berlin held a film screening in Warsaw]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). 2022-11-21. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處在第16屆五味亞洲電影節的「香港影院在律動」環節，舉辦開幕電影放映會。電影節由11月16至23日在華沙舉行。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin held the opening film screening at the "Hong Kong Cinema in Rhythm" segment of the 16th Wuwei Asian Film Festival. The film festival is held in Warsaw from November 16th to 23rd."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Berlin ( traditional Chinese: 香港駐柏林經濟貿易辦事處; simplified Chinese: 香港驻柏林经济贸易办事处) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 23:57, 24 November 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 Doctor Who (series 6)#Supplemental episodes.. History remains if a merger is desired Star Mississippi 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Death Is the Only Answer

Death Is the Only Answer (  | 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 webisode of Doctor Who I was l working nominating series 6 to a featured topic then found this which isnt part of series 6 and when I went looking for coverage I came out blank Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 22 November 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 as there's no indication folks familiar with sourcing requirements want to improve it, rendering draft space moot. Star Mississippi 02:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Redshine Publication

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The references in the "publications" section do not even mention the company with the exception of a press release. I removed a reference that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and unfortunately my WP:BEFORE search only finds more of the same. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT and there is no inherent notability based on the books. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: According to the book publication, the publisher has successfully released works by notable Indian authors, including Pravin Darji. Therefore, rather than deletion, this article can undergo improvement and enhancement. 103.172.10.36 ( talk) 06:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the !vote. Being you have few edits and may not be aware of notability guidelines, I wanted to make sure and point out the relevant guidelines for notability on this article which would be WP:NCORP. Can you look at the section WP:ORGCRIT and point out the references that meet that criteria in order to show notability?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This article has been flagged for notability concerns. However, the publisher has a track record of successfully showcasing the works of highly acclaimed authors, including Jahnu Barua (an Indian author and film director), Pravin Darji (a distinguished Gujarati poet, critic, and editor honored with the Padma Shri in 2011), and Gunvant Shah (a renowned essayist, educationist, columnist, and philosopher). Strong references from reputable sources such as Divya Bhaskar (a Gujarati newspaper), Punjab Kesari (a Hindi newspaper), REDMAC Magazine, research journals, edited books, and review publications support the credibility and significance of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghapushkarna ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The publisher having a "track record of successfully showcasing the works of highly acclaimed authors" is not something that would make it notable. Please see WP:IHN. I will ask the same question I did to the IP address above, "can you look at the section WP:ORGCRIT and point out the references that meet that criteria in order to show notability?" -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Draftify: In the pursuit of maintaining high standards in publishing, this article will not face deletion but will undergo enhancements. Being avid readers ourselves, I have read many authors mentioned in this list. The context can be further refined and elevated within the article, aligning with our commitment to delivering comprehensive and quality content. Harishghona ( talk) 07:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I am amazed at the WP:SPA votes this AfD is getting, but I will play along. Wikipedia notability is based on sourcing, not your pursuit of maintaining high standards in publishing. Can you point to the sourcing that shows how this company meets notability guidelines? -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify: I acknowledge and respect Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. But a publisher notability just does not depend on media coverage. Indeed, the choice of a notable publisher by bestselling authors is a relevant point. My suggestion to draft the page until sufficient sources meet Wikipedia guidelines is a prudent approach to ensure accuracy and compliance.   Harishghona ( talk) 12:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
"a publisher notability just does not depend on media coverage" - Actually, that is exactly what it depends on. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from more experienced editors. Also to see if there is additional support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Please check sources and sorry for the delayed response due to a busy schedule
  1. https://www.mid-day.com/brand-media/article/redshine-publication-breaks-barriers-the-importance-of-multilingual-book-23284824
  2. https://haryana.punjabkesari.in/gurgaon/news/redshine-publication-india-headquarters-1813396
Meghapushkarna ( talk) 12:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify: Before I edited this article there were no any references /info/en/?search=Bo%C5%BEidar_Kne%C5%BEevi%C4%87 , after spending some time I found some references and currently I'm working on this article's improvement.

In this article case, two sources found https://www.outlookmoney.com/outlook-money-spotlight/literary-and-author-empowerment-with-publishing-excellence-8913 https://www.sangritoday.com/redshine-publication-celebrates-remarkable-year-distributes-35-million-in-royalties-to-authors-in-2022-33

This article can improve... Nilarts ( talk) 11:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Amazing. The two sources you provided were just published and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which isn't suspicious at all.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 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. Views are about equally split between keep, delete and merge. That means there's not a consensus to delete the article; whether to improve or merge it can be done outside the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of the United States, Bucharest

Embassy of the United States, Bucharest (  | 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 main reason this should be deleted is because, aside from the address, the article says absolutely nothing about its purported subject. I tried redirecting to Romania–United States relations, where this content belongs, but was met with a wall of text and reverts, so here we are.

By the way, the article creator has started dozens of articles along the same lines: see e.g. here and here and here — articles ostensibly about US diplomatic missions, but actually about bilateral relations, senselessly duplicating previously existing articles. Might be worth looking into. — Biruitorul Talk 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. Most of the relevant content can be in Romania–United States relations. LibStar ( talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article includes the elevation of the U.S. Legation to Embassy status, and significant events such as the visit of U.S. First Lady Jill Biden, which are pertinent to this embassy and not merely reflective of broader bilateral relations. The article adheres to WP:VERIFY and WP:SIGCOV, supporting the notability of the embassy as an individual topic. – Kjerish ( talk) 00:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I’m sorry, but Jill Biden spending five minutes shaking hands there is not a “significant event”, no matter how hard one tries. Who was the building’s architect? How much did it cost? What are its special features? Its dimensions? How was the site selected? Where was the embassy previously located, for decades? (Are you even aware there was a previous headquarters?) When was that built? What is its purpose now that it’s no longer an embassy?
    • These are the sorts of questions a reader might be interested in finding out about, but is left completely in the dark. Inserting a routine news item about a courtesy call by the First Lady doesn’t compensate for that glaring deficiency. — Biruitorul Talk 06:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • @ Biruitorul: The article on the Embassy of the United States, Bucharest has since been updated, largely by @ Turgidson:, with information that addresses some of the concerns you raised. The article now includes details about the building itself, such as its relocation history, the dimensions and features of the current embassy compound.
      • I find the information on the embassy's acreage, timeline, and neighborhood valuable as someone not familiar with the area. I actually was not aware there was a previous headquarters. As someone who seems to have knowledge on the subject, I encourage you to review the updated article and consider adding any further information you think might be valuable. This is a discussion of whether or not the article should exist, not whether or not it's currently a C-class article – Kjerish ( talk) 15:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the Delete vote actually an argument for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

No, I don't support merge. LibStar ( talk) 23:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I can't find a good policy reason for deletion. There are sources, the article is (now, not at nom) about the subject, and the subject is encyclopaedic (also, there are excellent articles on far less notable buildings). There are very good policy reasons to keep, starting with the fact that the article does not match any of the 14 reasons for deletion in WP:DELETE. Two essays, WP:RUSH and WP:DINC, seem to cover this pretty thoroughly. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 20:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Maybe if this was the Zimbabwean embassy in Bucharest we'd require a much more comprehensive article to make its notability apparent, however I am sure the American embassy is notable and deserves an article, deleting or merging the article would be counterproductive to the aim of someone eventually writing about all those features Biruitorul has talked about since it will be harder if the article does not exist, it is a bigger burden to create an article from zero than to add a few sentences and a source and make it progressively longer. Though all information currently in this article not specifically about the embassy might need to be removed. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 15:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not independently notable; any sourceable content can go in Romania–United States relations. Systemic bias issue. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect, I agree with Stifle - this is in no way independently notable, and the content of this article is better encyclopedically chronicled in the R-US relations article in my opinion. Daniel ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Romania–United States relations: but only the notable parts. I was excited when I saw the Washington Post in the references, but it was just a mention in an article about Andrew Tate. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 30 November 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 23:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Elena Petrovska

Elena Petrovska (  | 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 subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions and this transfer news. Not to be confused with the writer / activist of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:15, 22 November 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 Uzbekistan women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Kholida Dadaboeva

Kholida Dadaboeva (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find coverage outside of passing mentions ( 1, 2, and 3), failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:57, 22 November 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 23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Christine Brady

Christine Brady (  | 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 to meet notability guidelines (GNG), article create by subject as self promotion Spongie555 ( talk) 22:45, 22 November 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 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ajmel Quereshi

Ajmel Quereshi (  | 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)

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:36, 22 November 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 23:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Dustin Pead

Dustin Pead (  | 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)

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 01:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Citations are passing mentions and profiles. Royal88888 ( talk) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG with only passing mentions and a story about his Halloween setup; this is not an elected office so NPOL doesnt apply. -- hroest 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete besides some passing mentions, it lacks in-depth coverage. - Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 16:37, 29 November 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 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ronald L. Ellis

Ronald L. Ellis (  | 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)

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk) 21:55, 22 November 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 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Christopher J. Burke

Christopher J. Burke (  | 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)

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk) 21:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. User:Let'srun 01:59, 24 November 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 Diocese of Paranaque as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources provided are self-published or are not independent from the subject, so I don't see a case for GNG. There are plenty of diocesan shrines around the world and this one has no particular specialty of note. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • At best, redirect to the Diocese of Paranaque in case it has a list of parishes/churches in the diocese. Otherwise, I'm inclined to vote for delete, as there isn't anything much that would make it more notable than other Catholic churches in the Philippines (like, say, the Quiapo Church or the EDSA Shrine or any really old church). --- Tito Pao ( talk)
    Tito Pao ( talk) 14:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hi Chris and Tito Pao, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines.
    1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info.: https://catholink.ph/paranaque/
    2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas.
    3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests ("the Avenido Brothers") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info.: https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines
    4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the "True Cross" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines)
    Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano ( talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A quick BEFORE-type search yielded no additional sources towards GNG and nothing present in either the article or extant online sources suggests notability outside the GNG standards. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 02:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Chris, just want to share with you the link(s) of Diocese of Parañaque - Catholink | https://catholink.ph/paranaque/ | The Diocese of Paranaque is composed of 6 vicariates with 3 National Shrine and 5 Diocesan Shrine in which the Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ belong. Our Church are rich in history and heritage, to name a few, our church is the only church in the Philippines and in Asia which is dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus; we are the first Diocesan Shrine in the City of Las Pinas, that gave us the mandate to spread our unique and special devotion to the five wounds of Jesus in the entire Diocese of Paranaque and other dioceses in the Philippines and this is one of the main reasons why we are trying to share this information using the wikipedia platform; we also hold the record to have 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests (Stigmatine Priest) on the same day in the Philippines "the Avenido Brothers and now Fathers" see link(s) https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines; our shrine is one of the few churches in the Philippines who hold the splinters pieces of wood of the True Cross of Jesus. We deemed that with this criterias we are worthy to be publish even thru me or thru other editors available in this platform to help us spread our devotion and inspirations that our church/Shrine can contribute to our City and our Country. Thank you Fred Luciano ( talk) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Chris, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines.
1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info.: https://catholink.ph/paranaque/
2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas.
3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests ("the Avenido Brothers") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info.: https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines
4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the "True Cross" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines)
Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano ( talk) 09:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
None of these are reliable secondary sources, and as I stated on your talk page, you appear to have a conflict of interest, based on your affiliation with this church, and that you are a self-declared single-purpose editor. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Fred Luciano: It looks like you've voted twice in this discussion. Please edit one of your comments to either strike the word "Delete" from the beginning of one of the comments, or change one of them to something like "comment". Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey man im josh. Thank you for assistance. Fred Luciano ( talk) 15:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The pages creator has a conflict of intrest as shown on their talk page, they deny being paid to edit but do claim that they regualry attend this church. Reportedly in the past they have called themself a "single purpose editor". Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    For lack of a better analogy, his comments above would be in the same vein as that of employees defending the article about their own company. The WP:COI issues need to be addressed and/or dealt with and taken into consideration. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 11:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for consideration of Sanglahi86's source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'd redirect or merge to the diocese where it's located; a church built in 1985 isn't a historic structure. Being a mega-church is nothing special as there are hundreds of them around the world. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree with the first argument (1985, so not a historic structure) but will beg to disagree with it being a "mega-church". It is a sweeping generalization for what is essentially just a Catholic parish (plus being a Catholic parish, it doesn't fit the definition of a megachurch, which applies to Protestant and evangelical Christian churches.) -- Tito Pao ( talk) 06:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The source above is not the best; it has no by-line and is part one of two parts. If that's all we have, it's a rather flimsy !keep. I'd change my vote if we could find more, better, sources about the building. All I can pull up is this [32], which is ok-ish, but still not enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH with sources provided by Fred Luciano and Sanglahi. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Some of the sources mentioned in the article are:
    • the parish' own Facebook page
    • a Yellow Pages listing
    • a personal travel blog that is not considered a quality source
    • a papal decree that has absolutely no relation to this article
    • and the Vatican News press release about the nomination of the diocesan bishop; the article also doesn't add anything about this article.
    --- Tito Pao ( talk) 06:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Titopao Ok. I'll exclude the FB page and Yellow Pages directory. But the rest of the sources are reliable and in-depth enough for me. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    User-generated content such as personal blogs might not pass muster under Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline (unless it's an official blog, e.g. official blog of an organization like the CBCP), so it's best to avoid citing them.
    Not really sure why the Waze link should also be considered under WP:RS since it may also be counted under WP:UGC.
    The latter two, while they may be considered official sources (they are, after all, taken from the official Vatican website), don't have any information that are directly related to the topic (as I have already mentioned). Like what I said, the Vatican press release about the diocesan bishop's appointment didn't mention the parish, so how exactly does that support the article? --- Tito Pao ( talk) 09:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Soft delete. Sorry, I cannot get over the obvious COI here. If another editor, driven by encyclopedic interest rather than by religious affiliation, wishes to rewrite this article, they are welcome to do so. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this non-notable church, the article for which has been created with apparent COI. I seriously considered closing this myself based on the strength of the delete arguments above and what I see as problems with some (but not all) of the keep arguments. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge trimmed down (~1-2 paragraphs max of sourced encyclopedic material) NPOV version to Diocese of Paranaque (or another consensus target) as AtD. I agree with the delete source evals above, there is no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, but there is enough primary ref'd material for the start of a section on the target article. If there is a consensus that the COI issue merits a delete, I have no objection.  //  Timothy ::  talk  12:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 November 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. Star Mississippi 02:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of German Scientists by Century

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

There exists Science and technology in Germany. Xx236 ( talk) 10:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - the editor who created this is very new and has other 'Lists of [Nationality] Scientists' that were deleted or draftified from the mainspace. However I don't think an equivalent of this list exists via Science and technology in Germany - but does there need to be? Either way, this article is not worth keeping in its current format. Kazamzam ( talk) 12:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep for the moment, and encourage merging new entries from List of German scientists. The full List of German scientists is rather unhelpful to readers. By splitting the list into time-periods, and providing very brief indications of what the person did/was, this new list helps readers find relevant articles. Imagine a reader who's interested in major figures of the 18th Century, or interested in astronomy. The List of German scientists is useless to them, but the new list will help them navigate rapidly to 18th C astronomers. Its entries are also blue-linked people. We should encourage this sort of helpful navigation aid. It may, however, be necessary either to rename the list as by historical period, or divide it truly by centuries. Elemimele ( talk) 15:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 22 November 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. Stifle ( talk) 10:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pan Britannica Industries

AfDs for this article:
Pan Britannica Industries (  | 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 agree that this fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There was no consensus in AfD in September, it had very low engagement. I hope this time we can find a consensus either way. Boleyn ( talk) 23:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The closing admin on the recent AfD had suggested a Talk page discussion about possible WP:ATD changes as the next step, but that didn't happen. So trying to pick up that discussion here... Despite some news coverage of the compan'y former chair, it does seem that the subject lacks WP:NCORP notability outside of the former plant's possible consequential pollution and health risk; Eastmain and Star Mississippi had proposed reorientating the article to that topic. The lingering concerns (most recently in the OU coursebook exercise and in the local media coverage of the building of retirement homes there) may be just enough for that. Alternatively, a merge/redirect to Waltham Abbey might be possible, though brownfield sites with possible health concerns are not unusual and the merge could be WP:UNDUE. A 3rd alternative might be a redirect to Baby Bio, though that would lose the trace of the academic references concerning the possible cancer cluster. AllyD ( talk) 11:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the ping @ AllyD. I think there's merit to keeping the info, but rather indifferent to whether it's the cancer cluster @ Eastmain and I discussed, the Abbey site you reference. Baby Bio seems personally less a fit to me. Star Mississippi 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The company doesn't pass the notability requirements of NCORP but doesn't need to. The stronger criteria in WP:ORGCRIT are there to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As the name Pan Britannica Industries and PBI are no longer in use commercially (PBI Home and Garden was wound up in 2015) coverage in this article cannot benefit it. The AtDs in this case don't sit well in any of the target articles suggested. There's just about enough here for a GNG pass. The company's no longer in operation, so the article is a brief resume of its history with no promo/advertising concern. Therefore, I'm willing to judge it for notability using the GNG as set out under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and the cancer issue allows it to pass. Rupples ( talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Rupples The logic you have applied does appear sound, and it furthermore solves the issue of no obvious redirect/merge. It may fall over if the PBI name is reincarnated in some way, but in that future case then WP:ORGCRIT can be applied at that point. Regarding PBI Home and Garden being wound up in 2015 - this is not stated in the article. Do you have a citation for this? Resonant Distortion 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Companies House: [33] Rupples ( talk) 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks - Keep. Resonant Distortion 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 22 November 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 Tirukkural translations. Viable ATD Star Mississippi 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Tirukkural translations into Finnish

Tirukkural translations into Finnish (  | 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)

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the one partial transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Reference #1 is literally just an entry in a table, contributing nothing towards GNG. Reference #4 appears to be the (partial) translation itself, and naturally can't contribute towards GNG either. @ Rasnaboy: What do the offline sources (#2 and #3) say about the Finnish translations in specific? How detailed is the coverage? Simply asserting that GNG is met is not useful for this discussion.- Ljleppan ( talk) 09:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Source #2 is a collection of articles by various authors and, if my memory serves me right, has separate essays on each translation. Source #3 has a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included. In general, details for Finnish is meager compared with other translations. Nevertheless, it is discussed on most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works. Rasnaboy ( talk) 02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
This is much too vague to be useful for this discussion. What does a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included mean? Is it mentioned once in passing? Listed in a table like in ref #1? As for reference #2, we don't count hypothetical sourcing: someone must verify that it discusses the topic in some detail. You can't just vaguely hand wave towards most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works and claim that Article now passes WP:GNG. Ljleppan ( talk) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, since the two references I have access to are useless for GNG purposes (one being literally a single word + a single number in a table and the other a partial translation itself), and no concrete information seems to be forthcoming about the other two. - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Regarding ATDs, I'm not really seeing anything properly sourced to merge into Tirukkural translations. W/r/t redirecting to it, I personally don't see much value in this redirect, but I wouldn't oppose it either. Ljleppan ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Two sources that cover a subject is not really enough for WP:SIGCOV. I would not object to a smerge into the main article on translations of this text. Bearian ( talk) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 22 November 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 speedy keep ( snow)‎. (non-admin closure) NM 12:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of public signage typefaces

List of public signage typefaces (  | 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)

Trivial. Fails WP:NLIST. Could not find a single realible source that discusses public signage typefaces in a group. Esolo5002 ( talk) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

While this article clearly needs a lot more citations (books, governmental sources) the theory of someone trying to replicate a look / appearance of a road sign and wanting a single source of information is pretty sound. Are art resources trivial?
In a perfect world, I think the model of this page would be something like the "Lists of Colors" pages. 69.124.168.78 ( talk) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This list serves a clear navigational purpose. Aaiqbal ( talk) 05:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The whole topic of navigational signage and fonts is deep and extensive. Once upon a time there was Johnston (typeface) (London Underground) and then half a century later the huge influence of Transport (typeface), Motorway (typeface) and Rail Alphabet drawn by Margaret Calvert; with similar stories of regimented font use in other lands: DIN 1451 / SNV (typeface) / Trafikkalfabetet. The article/list could benefit from a solid proper introduction at the top, and adding of contextual dates throughout the table (allowing sorting by year). Perhaps the huge font samples swatches on the right could be slimmed down to single lines or actual real world photographs of horizontal signs to give better context to readers.
    TL;DR; keep, and expand. — Sladen ( talk) 10:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This list can be improved and serves an educational purpose.-- Vulcan❯❯❯ Sphere! 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Typography for signage and wayfaring is a specialist discipline, that had demands that differ from typical typography in that they need to readable at distance and at speeds, and cover a much larger range of sizes. This has resulted in type faces designed specifically for this purpose.
See: Typography Best Practices, some books on the subject, from Google Scholar: Signage and Wayfinding Design: A Complete Guide to Creating Environmental Graphic Design Systems, Signage Design Manual, Edo Smitshuijzen Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems
Transport Design Manuals are prized by some and have been reprinted as collectors items eg British Rail Corporate Identity Manual Design Manual for the Swiss Federal Railways Tallus ( talk) 16:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The above responses have established that 1) that the subject of this list has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and 2) that this list does serve an " informational" purpose, meaning that this page does not fail WP:NLIST. — Jamie Eilat ( talk) 20:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pretty clear that sources exist, the article will need cleanup but this is one instance I think that deletion is not cleanup applies. Possible speedy keep? microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish• growths) 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: this was posted on a tweet by Depths of Wikipedia so I immagine there are a lot of eyeballs on this quickly. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish• growths) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Other way around. If you check the timestamps, the tweet happened first, and the nominator almost surely saw the Tweet. So this wasn't a case of canvassing support, but rather the nominator AFD'ing a page they themselves saw on Depths of Wiki, presumably. SnowFire ( talk) 04:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A perfectly valid navigational list as well as a valid information list. Dream Focus 15:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per all above. Perhaps a WP:SNOWBALL is going to start rolling? S5A-0043 Talk 16:40, 25 November 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 Tunisia women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Chaima Ben Mohamed

Chaima Ben Mohamed (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:52, 22 November 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 Tunisia women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ameni Boukari

Ameni Boukari (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. No indication of notability; the subject seemingly made a single appearance for her national team. Searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:48, 22 November 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 23:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Saco, California

AfDs for this article:
Saco, California (  | 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 railway point, with little information found, all of it passing mentions. This is also true for "Jewetta", which was another name this location was known by. A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saco, California) closed as no consensus with only two comments. The article has not been expanded since then. There is really nothing to say about this place, other than that it's another of the low-effort articles based entirely on GNIS entries for "unincorporated communities" in California, all created by the same user in 2009. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well this turned up "Saco, a station on the Southern Pacific Railroad, two and 8⁄10 miles from Oil Junction" very quickly in the search engines, and then "Jewetta, a siding on the Southern Pacific Railroad above Bakersfield" not long afterwards. So a post office and a railway siding. Ironically, there's far more about Solomon Wright Jewett and his sons Solomon Jewett and Philo D. Jewett in Kern County history books (e.g. Morgan's 1914 History of Kern County) than there is about the barely documented railway siding that was used for their sheep farm. The GNIS importers are writing about the wrong subject, and clearly didn't even have the first clue what the subject was. The Jewett's sheep farm north of Bakersfield is not the actual topic. In theory, this is renameable and refactorable, and expandable as a biography of Solomon Jewett who with his brother turns up in the history books. Uncle G ( talk) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • You're exactly right when you say the GNIS importers "didn't even have the first clue what the subject was", otherwise they would have written about these early citizens and not about some utterly non-notable rail siding. Can I interpret your answer as support for deletion? If we want to write about Solomon Jewett someone certainly can; there is certainly more to say about him than the railroad stop on his land. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Unless we can connect the dots and find out why (as reported by Gudde) their Jewett railway siding started becoming "sack" in 1900 just before Solomon Jewett's death (q.v.), I'm not sure that this as a redirect is appropriate. I definitely cannot find out more about the railway siding, and if this should redirect anywhere at all it should be to the rail line, which is now marked as a Southern Pacific one, although someone should perhaps find out which one. If we cannot find out which railway line to point to, or don't have it, my view is let's wait until a railway editor comes up with a railway article with a list of freight sidings before having a redirect for "sack". Uncle G ( talk) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per the first nom. It's just a rail spot. Mangoe ( talk) 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per the first nom. It is a non-notable railway waypoint that lacks any verifiable history of it being of any significance. There is not any documentation that is was even an unincorporated community / populated place. I can find no reason to keep this article simply on a vauge, unsubstantiated hope that somewhere / someplace there are undiscovered reliable sources proving that place is notable. If something is found, the article can either aways be recreated or added as a section to the article about Solomon Jewett. (By the way, I looked at the Kern County Property viewer and found nothing useful. Paul H. ( talk) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing useful in the current article. An article about an overlapping subject at a different title wouldn't be improved by saving this history. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:24, 26 November 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 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Luke Watson (distance runner)

Luke Watson (distance runner) (  | 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 runner. No major achievements or medals won. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:29, 22 November 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — siro χ o 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Survival of the Fittest (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with comment, "Presented by Laura Whitmore , notable figure". But, notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Rationale to keep must be based on the notability of the series, not the person in the series. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. O'Connor, Sorcha (2018-09-24). "Laura Whitmore's Survival of the Fittest show axed after just one series". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "It was dubbed the 'winter Love Island' but reality TV series Survival Of The Fittest - fronted by Laura Whitmore - has been dumped by ITV after just one series. ... The dating show with a twist saw 12 singletons head to South Africa where they stayed in a luxury lodge, with contestants pitted against each other in boys versus girls challenges. The show was won by the girls' team, with overall winner Mettisse Campbell, who was voted as 'fittest girl', choosing to split the £40,000 (€45,000) prize money among the other three remaining girls, with all four ending the series £10,000 richer."

    2. McCreesh, Louise (2018-02-13). "Survival of the Fittest is confusing fans – here, Laura Whitmore explains the rules of the game". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival of the Fittest aired its second episode on Monday night (February 12) with viewers still pretty perplexed about the rules. The series was initially branded by fans as a Winter Love Island but opened as a boys vs girls Gladiators-style battle of the sexes (with the obstacle course to boot) when it premiered, although things got even more confusing in last night's episode when newcomer Lottie was given the option of going on a date with one of the male contestants."

    3. Houghton, Rianne (2018-02-12). "It seems no-one knows what Survival of the Fittest is actually about – not even the contestants". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Whether it's a worthy replacement or not, ITV2's new reality series Survival of the Fittest is here to try to fill that Love Island-shaped hole in our lives. ... Despite a new location, a different premise and the introduction of challenges, tonight's (February 12) Survival of the Fittest felt suspiciously similar to its distant cousin – but not in a good way."

    4. Ling, Thomas (2018-09-24). "ITV2's Survival of the Fittest axed after one series". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "The show failed to grab the viewing figures of its stablemate Love Island, debuting with overnight ratings of 0.59 million, which had dipped to 0.30 million by its penultimate week. Overall, the show just didn't capture the zeitgeist of the nation in quite the same way Love Island did this summer. However, viewing figures may not have influenced the decision to cancel the show too heavily, with a source telling RadioTimes.com: “Some have suggested it is down to low ratings which absolutely isn’t the case.""

    5. Fullerton, Huw (2018-03-03). "Who won Survival of the Fittest?". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "After three weeks of mental and physical challenges, ITV2’s new reality show Survival of the Fittest has come to an end with the Girls on top, defeating the Boys in the Ultimate Team Challenge and taking home the final prize."

    6. Taylor, Frances (2018-02-14). "What is Survival of the Fittest? Everything you need to know about ITV2's new Love Island". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival of the Fittest is a brand new reality show from ITV2 that also promises sun, singles and gratuitous shots of skimpy swimwear – and it's starting this week! ... The six boys and six girls will take part in different games and challenges in what's being called "the ultimate battle of the sexes". The winning team will take home £40,000 at the end of the three weeks. ... Manchester-based comic and actor Brennan Reece is going to be doing the narration for Survival of the Fittest."

    7. Lewis, Anna (2018-01-02). "Missing Love Island? Then get excited for Survival Of The Fittest". Cosmopolitan. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival Of The Fittest is being hailed as ‘Winter Love Island’, and we can see why. It’s basically a bunch of female hotties and male hotties being pitted against each other in daily physical and mental challenges to determine if boys are better than girls or vice-versa. And all against the beautiful backdrop of the South African savanna."

    8. "Laura Whitmore: 'Survival of the Fittest is not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes'". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Laura Whitmore has claimed that Survival of the Fittest is "not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes”. The show will see a group of attractive singles compete in a range of mental and physical challenges as the men take on the women."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

    Withdrawn, per sources found by Cunard. Excellent work. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:14, 27 November 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 23:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (September–October)

Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (September–October) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a collection of loosely connected news reports from weeks after the 2006 Lebanon war, and is not a timeline of the war itslef (which ended in August) per WP:SYNTH. No material is notable enough to include in the Hezbollah-Israel conflict article for the inter-war periods. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve - It is notable to have an orderly timeline of the war. However, the article should be worked. Perhaps a tag on the top of the page asking for verification is what's necessary. Article should be expanded. Homerethegreat ( talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't describe a war timeline, but long after it ended. It is WP:SYNTH. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The following apply: WP:SYNTH, WP:TNT, and WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS applies for the article as is, albeit not for topic. gidonb ( talk) 13:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I think there could be an article on the aftermath of the conflict, but it doesn't exist. If someone wants to use this as a starting point for a proper article, I would agree to draft under a proper name. Its not a suitable redirect.  //  Timothy ::  talk  14:04, 29 November 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. Ignoring the blanking, which could be a sign of frustration, there's no evidence of an N:MUSIC pass given disagreement on the status of Empire. Star Mississippi 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Icetre

Icetre (  | 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 subject of this article doesn't meet any of the criteria listed at WP:SINGER. I tagged it with a notability tag initially but the tag was removed. A google news search turns up a single article by LA Weekly where two sentences were written about the subject in a "Hottest Artists to Watch in 2023" article. https://www.laweekly.com/hottest-artists-to-watch-in-2023/

Clearly not enough to establish notability. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Philipnelson99|( talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Look more into the subject. Do not base it on one article. The subject meets the criteria based off of Guideline #5 which states: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."
    The subject is signed to EMPIRE Distribution, whom acts as a major and independent record label (look into this as well). The subject has released two or more albums, fulfilling the guideline of #5 and to be noted, EMPIRE Distribution's roster consists of highly rated names that you would know of.
    Further more, EMPIRE Distribution promotes their artists very well with promotion and very adequate marketing. LAWeekly's Wikipedia states "The paper covers Los Angeles music, arts, film, theater, culture, concerts, and events." They are very notable but there is no payola so a "script" isn't being placed out there. They write what they feel but claiming a few short words discredits the request for notability is inadequate and I choose to appeal it on the grounds that the subject has in fact enough to prove notability.
    If felt that it only meets half (50/50) then I would be satisfied and would concede with it remaining a stub and it be promptly removed from "requests of deletion" with the sticker being removed from the top of the article, if both parties concede for it to remain a stub article.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And the subject's song was not only voted to be chosen for LAWeekly coverage but the subject's song was also voted to be featured on LAWeekly's Hottest Hits of 2023 playlist on Spotify. That more than proves notability, is LAWeekly not a reputable source anymore? I contest the ruling. There are 12 cited sources for the subject, there is sufficient evidence and proof that the subject is notable enough for an acceptance of a Wikipedia article or a continuance of a stub article. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If guideline #5 is accepted for notability but there is still that sliver of doubt that puts it on the fence then the stub article will be an efficient solution. The stub Wikipedia definition states: "A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion."
In a nutshell, the subject may lack coverage but useful information has been given and is capable of expansion. There will be an acceptance on our end of a stub tag has to be placed on the article. That is fine.
It states: "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template."
Possible Solution: The subject can keep their page as a stub article instead of an article of creation, the tag for deletion can be removed from the top but the tag for it being a stub article stays, and the subject gain more notability from the Guidelines in order to appease enough to have expansion granted and eventually its stub template be removed and reviewed for an article of creation, but with only enough sufficient evidence and proof towards the guidelines.
How does this solution sound? Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 20:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you editing on behalf of Icetre? Philipnelson99 ( talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
No I am not. The rules clearly state "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay, I withdrew my nomination. The reason I asked about you editing on behalf of the article is because you said something would "be fine on our end". that doesn't change the validity of the #5 claim that you pointed out, hence my withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah I completely understand about the "be fine on our end" part. I do a lot of writing and research but I get busy often so I have a friend on stand by to help with extra research if I can't get around to any of it due to a schedule conflict so that's who I was co-referencing when I said that phrase. You know how that can be when time gets away from you. and in light of the nomination withdraw, thank you very much for the re-consideration on the situation. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 20:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Is there any way to close the AFD for Icetre out? An auto-bot re-marked it and the AFD tag appeared on the top of the Wikipedia so it went back into rotation on your original ruling except others were wanting to void it even though you made your decision to withdraw the nomination. If we can close out the AFD for the subject then just let me know. Please and thank you. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 02:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I've actually decided to let this sit and I've retracted my withdrawal. comments from @ duffbeerforme below are the reason for my retraction. It's also not a good idea to remove AfD templates until someone closes the AfD which I did not do, I merely withdrew my nomination. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 02:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I was admittedly unclear about the AFD templates so I will take that as a learning lesson as I did not know that before hand about the withdraw. There is no problem with that. As far as @ Duffbeerforme I have made a very strong and well written argument as to why EMPIRE is considered a record label. A logical defense for EMPIRE has been provided and unless @ Duffbeerforme can provide sufficient evidence that rules against EMPIRE as a record label.
and to be clear he is stating that its one or the other, not both and I am stating the case that it is both but operates separately in operates entities.
There was a legal issue between the show Empire that aired on FOX and Empire Distribution. One of the biggest issues was who gained control over "Empire Records" since EMPIRE is a record label their artists were signed to EMPIRE Records but FOX had Empire Records for their TV show and the result was FOX proved to be the winner which resulted in EMPIRE dropping "Records" from EMPIRE Records. From there they rebranded as Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc.
This is solid proof that EMPIRE fits under the record label stature of Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 03:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
that does nothing to tell us whether or not the Icetre records were on the EMPIRE label... Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I was merely establishing EMPIRE as a record label which was an ongoing debated issue. Please refer to my other current responses as I have responded with more evidence. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 05:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    False. Here is cited information by Universal Music Group stating that EMPIRE is a record label. For the record, on Guideline #5, when you click on the "major record label" section, Universal Music Group is one of the record labels that appear. I have bolded the words that speak evidence to my case that EMPIRE is not only a "distribution company" but in fact an independent label and valid for Guideline #5.
    Here is the article
    https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-empire-form-strategic-distribution-agreement/
    SANTA MONICA, April 25, 2018 — Universal Music Group (UMG), the world leader in music-based entertainment, today announced a multi-year global agreement with EMPIRE, the San Francisco-based independent music company founded by Ghazi Shami, to provide strategic distribution services to UMG’s labels and artists to complement UMG’s existing global distribution network.
    Under the agreement, UMG and EMPIRE will work together on select artist projects from UMG’s labels that will benefit from EMPIRE’s unique approach to distribution, digital sales, promotion and marketing.
    About EMPIRE
    Founded in 2010, EMPIRE has grown to become the leading independent distributor and label for urban music in the United States. Its clients include labels and artists, both developing and veteran stars, across hip hop, R&B, Latin, reggae, pop, rock, gospel, and country. The company has provided distribution, label services, and promotion forsingles and albums by artists including Anderson .Paak, XXXTENTACION, Cardi B, Kendrick Lamar, DRAM, Fat Joe & Remy Ma, Migos, Shaggy, Snoop Dogg and many more. Find out more at: https://www.empi.re/
    About Universal Music Group
    Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: http://www.universalmusic.com.
    Date: April 25, 2018
    A distribution company only would handle distribution, they do not handle promotion or marketing as stated above. Further more, the section where it says "label services" can be argued that promotion and marketing are two fundamental aspects needed and necessary in terms of "label services." It is also repeatedly stated that it is independent while acting as a music company, record label, distributor, and publishing. I argue that Guideline #5 is still valid as EMPIRE is a record label and that distribution does not prevent it from being a record label the distribution only further adds onto the record label's resources but it does not make it solely a distribution company.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also I cite the Wikipedia definition of " record label"
    A record label, or record company, or simply records, is a brand or trademark of music recordingsand music videos, or the company that owns it. Sometimes, a record label is also a publishingcompany that manages such brands and trademarks, coordinates the production, manufacture, distribution, marketing, promotion, and enforcement of copyright for sound recordings and music videos, while also conducting talent scouting and development of new artists, and maintaining contracts with recording artists and their managers. The term "record label" derives from the circular label in the center of a vinyl record which prominently displays the manufacturer's name, along with other information.
    Distribution is defined as this:
    Distribution is the process of making a product or service available for the consumer or business user who needs it, and a distributor is a business involved in the distribution stage of the value chain. Distribution can be done directly by the producer or service provider or by using indirect channels with distributors or intermediaries. Distribution (or place) is one of the four elements of the marketing mix: the other three elements being product, pricing, and promotion.
    Distribution only makes up one of the four elements of the marketing mix while as product, pricing, and promotion is under the record labels' umbrella.
    1. Distributors do not make the price, they simply distribute the product.
    2. Distributors only distribute a product if they have said product, they have no involvement otherwise with creation of said product.
    3. Distributors do not handle promotion, even if a product is distributed to a special event they are not within the knowledge or have the power to change the distribution destination otherwise that would be considered a conflict of interest and would justify criminal charges.
    EMPIRE is considered through technicality a record label based on evidence that it can provide 3 of the marketing mix while as a distribution company can only provide 1 of the marketing mix.
    I rest my case. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    and to cite from EMPIRE's Wikipedia:
    "they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Schoolboy Q, Problem, Snoop Dogg, and Crooked I. They've also been involved in New York with releases from Fat Joe, Styles P, Cam'ron, and Busta Rhymes. On the R&B side, they have signed artists such as Eric Bellinger, Jacquees, Jesse Boykins III, Jonn Hart, and Lyrica Anderson."
    These are high name acts that you may or may not have heard of. Those are artists who were signed by EMPIRE to their record label while as other artists were simply distributed but not signed to the label itself. Those R&B artists who were signed were signed under a recording contract, which constitutes and adds weight to the claim that EMPIRE is also a record label. If they had sign a distribution deal then they would be under the "they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as" section. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 02:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Okay, so looking into to it. I don't think you can find a source that says Icetre was actually signed to EMPIRE. And the albums on the page don't appear to published by EMPIRE at all. Discogs isn't a valid source for that info and neither is MusicBrainz. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The validity of EMPIRE has been established, which is good. The subjects's paper trail of EMPIRE is within the licensing. Apple Music and Spotify do not provide EMPIRE's title but Youtube has the records and further evidence. Youtube indexes Youtube Music to their Youtube descriptions which shows that Icetre's music is under the EMPIRE record label.
    Here is a cited example:
    Icetre - House Party
    The description goes as follows: Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution
    House Party · Icetre · Miscellaneous House Party (feat. Miscellaneous) ℗ 2017 Blazington Music Group Released on: 2017-10-20 Auto-generated by YouTube.
    This version of
    House Party
    says:
    EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group); BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UMPG Publishing... This is viewable in the description and scrolled down to the licenses section on the Youtube app .
    All 3 albums of the subjects read "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution"
    Pisces Gold 2.0
    28
    Slime To Tha 5
    and the subjects latest song as of 6 months ago shows the same "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution" description on the video
    Here is the song
    Old School (2004)
    This is irrefutable proof that the subject is a legitimate artist with EMPIRE.
    Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 03:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    That still doesn't tell me if the albums were on the label, simply that a distribution company provided the info and you're running into the problem @ Duffbeerforme pointed out. The evidence you've provided doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 04:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The site https://empire.empi.re does not have a roster for any artists, their roster list is on Wikipedia. EMPIRE has the subject under them and the subject has a record label underneath EMPIRE, Blazington Music Group. On the subject's album 28, on Youtube the licensing says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." The subject is an artist with EMPIRE and has their own faction under EMPIRE, the Blazington Music Group. This is why it is says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The evidence I provided proves sufficient enough for Guideline #5 which is the subject has released two or more albums on a major record label or an independent record label. Licensing data exists and shows that the subject's music listed in their Wikipedia aligns correctly with Catalog Numbers, UPC and ISRC codes that come from the EMPIRE catalog. The catalog numbers begin with ED which is short for EMPIRE Distribution. The subject's was signed, began a record label underneath EMPIRE, and their music is distributed under Blazington Music Group but released under EMPIRE.
    Evidence has been given and shown that the subject has legitimately released two or more albums under a major record label or an independent record label. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Have you had time to think everything through and consider the evidence provided? There would be satisfaction with the original solution of the subject's Wikipedia remaining a stub but for the stub tag to be removed the subject has to provide necessary information in the future for expansion in order for a larger article to be created. Also Happy Thanksgiving I hope you have a great one @ Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have and I strongly favor deletion. This person does not come close to meeting WP:SINGER and your walls of text have done nothing to tell me if those records were actually on the EMPIRE label. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 20:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    So I have consulted with the support team at EMPIRE about this matter and they informed me that they are willing to provide screenshots of royalties and earnings within their own database with the UPC codes of the records that were mentioned so that can provide the necessary information that the subject is indeed with EMPIRE. I would not be providing large amounts of information if I did not believe that the subject has met a guideline for acceptance.
    There is an issue
    You initially said that the subject met Guideline #5, then the legitimacy of the record label was challenged, I proved the legitimacy of the record label, then the legitimacy of the subject being on the record label was challenge, I am in the middle of proving the legitimacy of this but if the legitimacy is proven then the subject meets Guideline #5 which is they have released two or more albums on a major or independent record label.
    Under your same terms its about proving legitimacy of Guideline #5 I vote that the rules stay that way to prove there is no bias or conflict of interest. This should be fair for all parties considered. We should not be moving the goal post. That is not playing fair and I feel that would almost violate some sort of rules for the editors. Let's do this fair.
    If the legitimacy can be proven then under fairness the subject's Wikipedia stays under Guideline #5. Even @ Duffbeerforme's initial issue was whether Guideline #5 was valid for EMPIRE. I proved that it was so that was satisfactory evidence in all technicalities. The legitimacy of proving the subject's records being released on EMPIRE is underway but if that can be proven then I feel that by the fairness of the Wikipedia community that it should be valid for the subject to retain and keep their Wikipedia stub. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 21:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Final comment from User:Philipnelson99: You said before that the EMPIRE site doesn't have a roster for artists but they do have pages for individual releases. If Icetre is on the label it would be on Empire's site and I've confirmed his most recent albums is not listed there. Furthermore, iTunes even has an EMPIRE records page which Icetre isn't on. [34]
    It's clear that all of your claims above do not show that the records above are on the EMPIRE record label, and aside from the obviously unmet record label claim, there is no evidence that Icetre meets the criteria outlined in WP:SINGER.
    A comment posted by the artist on Genius (company) claims that EMPIRE and Blazington Records are connected and have been since 2014 [35], but it still appears that Icetre's records are published by Blazington not empire. Furthermore, the artist published content on WP:GENIUS is WP:BLPSELFPUB and thus completely unreliable. Same goes for anything published on Blazington Music's socials given their apparent ties to Icetre. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is what I mean by moving the goal post. There is clear evidence that the subject's music was released under the EMPIRE label with the evidence cited but you are making the claim that if it is not done a specific way then it does not count. A second or third opinion is definitely needed for this. I feel like you are being biased with the subject and therefore unfair.
    The subject legitimately released the music on EMPIRE and evidence was provided that it was released but you are requiring extra steps that once proven then require more extra steps. It was proven the subject was on the label, then it was proven EMPIRE was a record label, then it was proven that the subject's music was released under EMPIRE on YouTube, and now you are requiring the release be on the website and iTunes, how many times are you going to move the goal post?
    I feel like the community needs to be apart of this decision because I feel there is clear bias from you @ Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Question for @ Bunkytrap34, can you 100% without a doubt proved he is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label? I'm looking at the iTunes pages and see no mention of EMPIRE in the copyright section. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes I can, please refer to the reply that I had just posted a moment ago. Spotify and Apple Music have seemingly hidden the data for many artists while only providing sometimes just a single label name but not the main record label but Youtube has the information including licensing information which helps provides further evidence. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 03:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    On the SoundExchange website https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22simple%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&currentPage=4&showReleases=true, the subject's music is listed along with the ISRC code and the matches to the songs.
    EMPIRE signed the subject and with the creation of the subject's record label there was no necessary need for EMPIRE to be listed if the subject was already underneath the record label. The phrase "hat on a hat" applies here. This is why the subject's label says "Blazington Music Group". There was no necessary need to put both as the subject already releases music under the EMPIRE record label but underneath the subject's record label Blazington Music Group.
    This is why the Youtube data reads the way it does versus the way it reads on iTunes and Spotify.
    The subject is legitimately an artist with EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 05:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes here is the evidence.
    I can you 100% without a doubt prove the subject is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label
    On the mobile version of Youtube, the subject's releases "28", "Pisces Gold 2.0", and "Slime To Tha 5" are properly licensed and since the subject has their own record label, Blazington Music Group, underneath EMPIRE it becomes recorded on the licensing information.
    I cite that the information says under "LICENSES"
    "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)
    Licensing information comes from the record label itself, not distribution.
    This is solid evidence that the releases are under EMPIRE otherwise it would not show EMPIRE on the licensing information. Also evidence of releases under EMPIRE is that it says on behalf of Blazington Music Group but if it was distributed through Blazington Music Group then it would say Distributed by Blazington Music Group.
    I argue that this is solid and concrete evidence that the releases were released under EMPIRE and that the subject satisfies the original ruling of whether the subject meets Guideline #5 or not.
    @ Duffbeerforme @ Philipnelson99 @ Shellwood @ Skynxnex @ Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please don't tag us all. That's completely unnecessary and arguably WP:CANVASSING. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My bad I did not mean to make it seem like canvassing, only tagged everyone involved just to see how everyone felt about the evidence provided.
    But I think the "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group) proof is solid for a case that the subject is under and has released said albums under EMPIRE and that the subject is fit for a stay of stub article due to fulfilling the Guideline #5.
    Is this satisfactory enough for you to withdraw your nomination? I hate that I am keeping you online back and forth with the matter of this subject. I hope you and I can get this taken care of and we can close out the article for deletion for Thanksgiving.
No, I feel this deletion discussion should continue and more opinions should be considered. I understand you want it to be over but that's not how this process works. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay that is no problem. The solid 100% without a doubt evidence is the response that has everyone tagged in it. I had a feeling that there would be other opinions needed and so that's why I tagged everyone in there so they could see it for themselves and draw an unbiased decision based on the evidence I provided and not because they were swayed by your opinion. All opinions are welcome so it will be better to get the opinions from others on the cited evidence for acceptance under Guideline #5.
I feel as if the evidence is concrete. I noticed that you did not mention anything further about the subject so maybe there was satisfactory enough evidence to suffice but that further opinions would be needed. Something as a community vote if you will.
I do not mind if the subject has to have their stub article reviewed by the community in order to draw a final conclusion on if it fulfills Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment so the nominator, Philipnelson99, said they were withdrawing (the withdraw itself was withdrawn as I was writing this comment) the nom but didn't close the discussion (and no one else did); afterwards extensive discussion occurred here instead of the article talk page. A editor has since suggested deletion so it feels a bit iffy to speedily close based on my reading of WP:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). But, I am open to other ideas/not saying my interpretation is definitive saying that so some attention will be paid. Thanks. (this was written while the withdraw was still active but leaving it mostly as-is.) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Skynxnex, my withdrawal was on the basis that someone else voted for deletion. Sorry if I inadvertently broke the process. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Philipnelson99 I didn't mean to imply you did anything incorrect, just that we were in a slightly unusual situation compared to other AfDs I've seen. Since the discussion remained open, I think you're fine with deciding to not withdraw the nomination. In the future, if you do decide to withdraw a nomination, feel free to close it as well assuming it meets the criteria listed at the link I shared. (For example, I think the discussion that continued was reason enough to not close it.) Skynxnex ( talk) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good, I read the policy but was unsure if closing a discussion which I brought was a good idea given that only myself and the page creator had commented here. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    There was the issue with the original AFD not being closed out. I mistakenly removed the tag on the thought that that's what would close out the AFD I did not know it had to be closed out by the nominator. This resulted in a second discussion based around the record label the subject is currently with. While this is great for diligence I feel as if the case that I made in defense of said record label was adequate enough to satisfy any doubts.
    I have used a lot of proof and cited information for the case so I hope everyone involved thoroughly reads the evidence based around the second discussion and the record label's authenticity.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Further to my delete comment. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for people with a obvious conflict of interest, looking at you Stephen Best, your claim otherwise is not even remotely close to being believable. Stick to other platforms where there is a big push. Search finds PR on sites like a bombardment at Medium by the same author (google icetre stephen best) such as crap like this but Medium is not a reliable source. Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The discussion about COI in regards to this subject and Philip is right here but you are on the wrong page. It is under the COI tag. I have proven there is no COI and I have proven that the subject is on EMPIRE. As Philip stated, writing abut the article subject multiple times is not a COI in and of itself. This entire nomination is whether it meets Guideline #5, so not to be mean but lets stay on subject here. We are not discussing any other claims of this and or that, it all stays on the subject of whether Guideline #5 is met. We are not discussing Guideline #1 which is reliable sources and independent coverage we are discussing Guideline #5 and it also states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." and the claim that the subject is an artist on EMPIRE is found within reliable and reputable sources.
    Here is the claim for the subject being on the record label on TheOrg: https://theorg.com/org/empire-distribution/org-chart/icetre
    And it is not the only site that claims the subject as an artist with EMPIRE that is independent from the subject and verifiable
    Here is the debate on COI raised by Philip, the original nominator
    COI possibility[ edit source
    After reading through the page creator's ( User:Bunkytrap34) user page, I've determined there is a high likelihood of a conflict of interest. I see that the user says they are "Stephen Best" and they have written about the article subject multiple times (that's not a COI in and of itself).
    Furthermore, the apparent record label the artist owns and operates has "Stephen Best" listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms. [1] (one of the platforms is not linked due to it being on the spam blacklist)
    I'm extremely concerned about an undisclosed COI, especially since I was told there was no COI before. Additionally, I found that this account had uploaded a photo to Commons that appears to be of IceTre Media:IceTre in 2020.jpg and the description says

    The music video for IceTre’s song “Understand Me” was filmed in 2020. Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video. A team of videographers, press, and social media managers were present for correct handling of the project at hand.

    This file is labeled as Bunkytrap34's own work.
    So, User:Bunkytrap34, could you explain this? I don't mean to be accusatory but paid editing and conflicts of interest are very important issues for Wikipedia.   Philipnelson99 ( talk) 03:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
    Hello there, I am able to provide explanations:
    1. Yes I have written about the article subject multiple times as that's not a COI in and of itself as you stated.
    2. The biography I wrote was well received so the subject took it upon themselves to include it and properly cited with "Stephen Best." This is why the name is listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms (I am not aware of all several.) But I am happy that they kept the name out of respect for the person who wrote it. As far as writing for the subject's record label I am not currently employed or on their payroll. I cannot pass that along to the subject to change it but I am glad I could clear that part up that I am not a writer under their label but merely wrote the biography used.
    3. Yes I uploaded the image but it is not my own work. Admittedly I tried to upload it the other way but it would not display the photo once it was uploaded. It did work when It was uploaded under own work so that is my bad for the confusion. I did not take the photo and that is why I phrased everything the way I did from an editors perspective since I wasn't there. I had mentioned that "Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video." but I wasn't there to witness whether it was captured as requested or not.
    Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 07:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
    One thing I did notice is that the biography I wrote has been reworded a few different times and not all biographies are an exact match on some of these platforms. I would most likely conclude that the subject's biography was edited with different information or updated with new information but the original that I wrote was still the backbone of the biography hence why the name "Stephen Best" was still included.
    and now that I think of it, with that many biographies floating around and my name attached with them I can see how someone even at EMPIRE could draw a conclusion that I write for the subject's record label when in fact I wrote one biography and its been edited and posted multiple times in relation to the subject. I think that is honestly what we are dealing with here.   Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 07:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
    That was my reply on the COI page.
    Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Duffbeerforme Have you taken a chance to review my response?
    Honestly I think you both are taking this personal.
    for example: Your first issue was whether or not EMPIRE was a record label or not.
    That was proven it was.
    Now its whether there is a COI or not.
    Evidence was provided about this but what else are you going to come up with after the COI or are you going to be satisfied? That's why it seems like it is personal because every time something has enough evidence to hold up then there is something else that has to become satisfied. I have enough evidence for a solid case for Guideline #5 and each time it is shown clear and concrete evidence then @ Philipnelson99 simply denies it or moves the goal post and says it needs to be "his way or the highway." He said "can you prove 100% without a doubt that the subject's releases were through EMPIRE?" and I provided sufficient evidence but I can clearly show that he is goal post moving because he said "well those releases are not on the website or on the EMPIRE iTunes page." That is goal post moving and he does not want to admit it because I feel like he is taking this personally. He could say "well even though it shows he released it on the label it needs to be proven to me with a video that someone took of the subject signing the paperwork with the EMPIRE president in the photo as well." This is extreme and shows that there is never going to be satisfactory evidence for the editor due to goal post moving.
    I feel like this is "taking it personal" especially where as I showed the subject's releases were in fact released through EMPIRE then Philip simply says "it needs to be on the website or it does not count." It is a clear abuse of power to use your own singular thought as the "only" option which I think is why he wanted to keep the discussion opened. The subject's music on EMPIRE can be proven by licensing and record label data on the websites, the subject's music does not need to be on the very front page of the EMPIRE website co-signed by the EMPIRE president himself in order for this claim of the subject's music releasing through EMPIRE to be met.
    We need others to chime in on this entire discussion. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    You cite that page from The Org, but it says at the top that it's an unverified company. [36] That site is not enough to verify that Icetre is truly on the record label. I'm not "moving the goal posts" as this process is necessary to determine a subject's notability. Regardless of my initial argument, the argument @ Duffbeerforme raised is an important one because you used the record label criteria as the claim to notability. If you cannot verify that he is on the empire record label, then you must use the other criteria specified in WP:SINGER.
    In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best.
    Furthermore, this is not personal. This is simply a discussion to determine if an article should remain on Wikipedia based on the notability guidelines agreed upon by consensus. I'm sorry if my comments have appeared as personal attacks. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    After taking time to rebuild I wanted to bring up a few things
    1. If the subject signs to EMPIRE, creates a record label while on EMPIRE, does that technically mean that he is still on EMPIRE or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE? and does this mean the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE?
    2. If the answer is "yes he is still technically on EMPIRE" and that "yes it means the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE" then all releases under the subject's created record label that was created under EMPIRE would technically still be released under EMPIRE. It could not be released solely on the subject's created record label because it was specifically created whilst the subject was already under EMPIRE.
    3. It's a bit of a tricky situation in the first place from what I've gathered: The subject releases music on the EMPIRE record label through the record label they created while on the EMPIRE record label but the subject's releases say the subject's record label name. If the subject wanted to solely have "EMPIRE" as the record label name on Apple and Spotify then the subject would have to unfortunately cancel out their created record label and have it wiped from the EMPIRE system. On Youtube it says "EMPIRE (On behalf of Blazington Music Group" because it is still on the EMPIRE record label but they included the subject's record label for posterity. Even I can see possible licensing issues if it only said EMPIRE instead of the subject's record label included.
    4. If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I follow up with this next piece of evidence from SoundExchange. Here is the definition: SoundExchange is an American non-profit collective rights management organization founded in 2003. It is the sole organization designated by the U.S. Congress to collect and distribute digital performance royalties for sound recordings. It pays featured and non-featured artists and master rights owners for the non-interactive use of sound recordings under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114.
    5. SoundExchange is a verifiable source from the U.S. Congress and is not self published. You mentioned my sources were questionable or self published at best. The definition: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process... SoundExchange has a very high reputation for checking proper facts (for example they may say "does this artist's song belong to this artist? and then do their fact checking from there". SoundExchange has very meaningful editorial oversight with no conflict of interest as the U.S. Congress would be in extreme violation of such things. SoundExchange does not rely on promotional content, extremist content, heavily unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Predatory open access does not apply in this case.
    6. SoundExchange has the subject's music and data available here. The three albums in question are "Pisces Gold 2.0", "28", and "Slime To Tha 5", all information including Artist, Title, Version, Year, Duration, ISRC, Release, Release Label, Release Date, Release Artist, and UPC are displayed once the "Show Releases" switch is toggled on.
    7. If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I say that SoundExchange is a verifiable source and non self published source showing that the two or more album releases by the subject were under EMPIRE and the subject meets Guideline #5.
    8. The ISRC search feature of SoundExchange is still apart of the SoundExchange website.
    Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    and I wanted to add a little bit more context to my first question.
    1. If the subject signs to EMPIRE, granted to create a record label while on EMPIRE and does not leave EMPIRE and continues releasing music, does that mean that he is still on EMPIRE when he releases music or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE when he releases music?
    2. If EMPIRE allows someone to create a record label under EMPIRE does that mean the subject's record label's releases are ultimately under EMPIRE since the subject's record label is under EMPIRE and the subject themselves are under EMPIRE?
    Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I forgot to include the SoundExchange link I mentioned earlier. Here it is:
    https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22advanced%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&fileType=%22all+file+types%22&showReleases=true Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    So the connections behind this is that SoundExchange shows the albums were in fact from Blazington Music Group and it shows the dates when they were released. YouTube shows the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE as their licensing data shows on the videos. Manipulation of licensing data is not able to be done even when uploading videos to Youtube. Licensing data is handled by Youtube and other parties involved (EMPIRE in this case). I checked and there is the subject's Youtube and there is a topic version of the Youtube. The licensing data displays on the subject's Youtube information but since licensing data cannot be manipulated then that does not go against a conflict of interest nor is licensing data "self published". The licensing information is in an entirely separate section that is unable to be edited by the general public. In this case only Youtube and EMPIRE have access.
    I am merely using Youtube as extension of proof between the two. In this case, Licensing data should count to prove the connection. If the president comes out with an official statement on Youtube, does Youtube's reputation enough to say that the video is "invalid"? Since licensing data is across multiple sites it would be silly to say it doesn't count on Youtube but counts on Apple Music.
    I have an idea, I want you to answer a question for me, 100% without a doubt but if Blazington Music Group was not under EMPIRE then how could it possibly say "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group"
    and mind you if it was distributed by Blazington Music Group then it would say "Distributed by Blazington Music Group" and if it was distributed by EMPIRE then it would say "Distributed by EMPIRE"
    so can you 100% without a doubt say that EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group have no connection and can you 100% without a doubt explain why the licensing data says those two names together?
    If "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" is not a connection to EMPIRE then I don't know what is. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    SoundExchange acts as the reliable source and Youtube acts as the supporting evidence. Licensing data cannot be manipulated and UPC and ISRC codes. so the supporting evidence should still count and not be thrown out so it can support the claim that Blazington Music Group has the connection to EMPIRE.
    "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" shows a direct connection and since the licensing data is in a section that cannot be manipulated and is directly supplied by Youtube, Blazington Music Group, and EMPIRE themselves, It should be counted as legitimate. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is my last comment here. I don't believe the youtube video description is enough justification that this musician is on the record label, and thus the notability guidelines aren't met in my opinion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    So I am uploading a video to Flickr to cite. The subject's manager got ahold of me via email and sent a screen recording from inside the subject's login information for the EMPIRE database. You will be able to see everything from there and it will be indisputable. I have seen the recording and it is transparent and shows the direct connection. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I thought the information provided was enough but please see this last piece of evidence before you make your decision. It is a 4 minute video in order to see everything for what is. It is more than enough to satisfy any doubt that it Blazington Music Group is connected to EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Here is the video that was emailed to me https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/
    This is undeniable proof. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    replying to my own comment but was informed that they used the subject's login information in order for it to display this information on the EMPIRE website. I don't know what that all meant in terms of if it was necessary or not but from what the video showed anyone can make a clear connection to Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 23:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was emailed this over by the manager as well its the EMPIRE Content Team confirming the 3 releases from the subject were released on EMPIRE. They had requested the subject contact them about this matter but I wasn't made aware of this until their manager informed me. I did not want to have to go to these lengths to prove the connection but it was good to do. Between the video and this photo its undeniable proof and that the nomination should be withdrawn and that the subject can keep their stub article.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/
    I was informed me that nothing was blacked out that way there was no accusations of fakes or digital imagery. It appears it was sent to the subject. I would imagine this whole matter has made the EMPIRE team question what is going on so with the video and the photo I think it all goes under Guideline #5 and that the subject can keep their stub article. @ Philipnelson99
    * I do not own any copyright to these videos or photos these are not products of mine they are used with permission merely for wikipedia purposes* Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, per discussion { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

A connection has been made between record labels. The nomination meets Guideline #5 and the afd will be withdrawn soon. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 00:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not withdrawing the AfD. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I effectively proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. That was what you asked for and that was what was delivered. I thought you were not moving the goal post? Did you watch the video and see the photo? The subject meets Guideline #5 and should be granted the stub article. Mind you this is only a stub article we are talking about. You said there is a process to this, well any and all processes include being fair and I was able to prove there was the link between the two. By not removing the afd after this evidence has been shown this shows me that you are moving the goal post.
Why are you not being fair? Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
video evidence: https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/
photo evidence:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/ Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll refer you to Duffbeerforme's first comment on this AfD. It's pretty clear that the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That doesn't mean the subject was signed to the record label. That's the absolute last thing I'm saying here. I don't like to be accused of being unfair. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The issue he was saying is that EMPIRE isn't a real record label, it had nothing to do with whether the subject's work was distributed by EMPIRE, you are moving the goalpost and being unfair.
Duffbeerforme's first comment:
Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
I already proved EMPIRE was a record label, why are you going in a loop? You asked for a clear connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE and I proved there was and now you are saying its pretty clear the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That is taking it in a complete opposite lane.
The issue is whether the albums are ON EMPIRE and I already established that EMPIRE was a real record label and then I established that the releases were on EMPIRE and then I established that the subject was on EMPIRE and then I established the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. You are being very unfair.
We need others to chime in on this. I have provided everything you asked and you are moving the goal post. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bunkytrap34 A bit of advice meant in good faith: I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process given the number of your replies. Whoever chooses to close this AFD will see your responses so repeatedly making them normally are not valuable and may work against the position you're arguing for. AFDs are normally allowed to run 7 days; at which point an uninvolved, experienced editor will close this discussion (or relist it for further discussion if that seems fruitful). Skynxnex ( talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
So I do not want to sound impartial but many of my replies are either providing evidence that the nominator asks for or replying back to the nominator about them saying the evidence is not sufficient enough. I could have chopped down those replies but I felt as if the evidence needed explanation even though the nominator repeatedly turned down all shown pieces of evidence.
I genuinely feel I provided enough evidence that the subject meets Guideline #5 which states:
  1. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
But thank you very much for letting me know that. This process has been an ordeal with countless amount of research. I really thought the nominator and me had an understanding at first. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I withdrew my nomination on the belief that Icetre was signed to EMPIRE records. I retracted it after Duffbeerhome pointed out that Icetre was merely being distributed on the EMPIRE distribution side of the company. This wasn't meant to attack or disparage you. This is how an AfD process works. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
No he did not. What he said was "Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there." He did not say anything about the subject being distributed on the EMPIRE side. Please cite where he said that because I cannot find it. and further more Guideline #5 says two or more albums released on "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." and the wikipedia for EMPIRE says "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE) is an American distribution company and record label founded in 2010 by Ghazi Shami."
The entire name is "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). It clearly says its stylized as EMPIRE but it is not simple EMPIRE Distribution. Obviously that title would be too long for a wikipedia name. This is what the nominator does not understand is that EMPIRE handles all 3, not just one separate from the other, its all the EMPIRE. The nominator is "splitting hairs" on whether the releases were on EMPIRE Records or on EMPIRE Distribution when in reality its all the same thing coupled together into one record label and that's exactly why it says: ""Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
This is the issue we are dealing with:
The nominator said: "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."
so I sent them a video and photo confirming the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE from the official EMPIRE website. UPC codes and images confirm the connections between the two.
After I posted the evidence they simply said "I am not withdrawing the afd". The nominator is ignoring the connection, is refusing to accept Guideline #5, and will not withdraw the afd. They are talking about the release of the albums but in earlier conversations I have already proved my case legitimate so the nominator is refusing to remove the afd based on them "moving the goal post". I talked to the nominator about this and they said they are:
  1. fair
  2. not moving the goal post
  3. not taking it personal
but I am not seeing that here. I am speaking from my perspective. We need others to read through this and chime in. I have proven over 5-6 claims from the nominator and I feel like the nominator is going in a different direction even when I proved their claim down to a T. I feel like this is sabotage. I do not understand why the nominator is being this way. Each time I prove evidence then there is another claim and once I had provided the indisputable evidence then the nominator takes it a few claims back and speaks on the legitimacy of the albums when i had already proven the legitimacy.
This nominator is on a rampage and i do not understand why this nominator is being this way. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't want to comment a lot but I'll add a few points:
  • The nominator cannot withdraw this AFD at this point (and could not as soon as any one voted delete)
  • As WP:BLUDGEON explains, once you've explained your rebuttal to a specific point, unless someone else asks you a question, assume the closer will read, and assess, your comments against other user's comments.
I am very confused by the provenance of the video and picture in the Flickr account you linked to. They're not a reliable source or verifiable. The email content and the video to my eye doesn't prove that Icetre is "signed" to a label; everything, to me, seems consistent with sort of B2B business relationship where someone is paying Empire some fee to manage uploading and licensing.
And even assuming Icetre did meet WP:SINGER#5, that doesn't automatically make him WP:NOTEABLE and since WP:BLP applies, even if WP:NOTABLE if there aren't sufficient WP:RELIABLESOURCES, we can't have an article. In short, there need to be reliable, independent sources (I don't see any, at best there's one or two extremely marginal sources). If you want this article kept, it'd be best on focusing finding and providing the best sources available, about Icetre, that haven't been presented or in the article. Skynxnex ( talk) 01:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah okay I wasn't sure but okay to both points. Sorry for the late responses.
So the nominator had denied evidence and said "In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best" so I provided a verifiable source SoundExchange a non profit organization by the U.S. Congress, and showed that the subject's albums were released on Blazington Music Group and that UPC and ISRC codes could be used to check against any database including EMPIRE's.
So then the nominator says "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."
So right there he is asking for a reliable source that says this is the case and he is asking for a connection between EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group.
I provided the video that is within the EMPIRE database and the image as these are only meant to prove my point that Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE are connected and that the information on SoundExchange is reliable. He did not say that SoundExchange did not count he only wanted proof of connection so that's where the videos and images come from. I merely uploaded those to that site I am not using Flickr as a reputable site, that would be silly.
Labels.empi.re bring you right up to the EMPIRE backstage login.
You say there is no proof but here is cited information of the subject when the subject signed with EMPIRE back in 2014
https://www.facebook.com/share/6WfQF1A6G77FJqLk/?mibextid=Zmo65R
The nominator requested the subject be apart of the "roster" but go to https://store.empi.re/pages/artist-roster you'll see that there is no artists there but the subject had screenshotted years ago the roster list when it was still made available:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=777517018967656&set=a.446109862108375&type=3&mibextid=Zmo65R
Now I can't explain why the list is gone but just because EMPIRE decided to remove the roster list that does not mean that the subject is "suddenly" off of the label and if that was true that would mean there is no more artists with EMPIRE and that would be silly to think that just because it shows no artists on their roster.
I mentioned the subject has their own record label that they created specifically underneath EMPIRE. It was within their contract otherwise it couldn't just "appear", those situations require paperwork behind it. The screenshot on the subject's Facebook clearly shows the email was designated specifically towards the subject. I mentioned also that if they wanted "EMPIRE" to be on the label list then the subject would have to cancel their record label's contract and all of that would be extreme for a Wikipedia community to want the subject to do that just for posterity. This is why I proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE.
You say there needs to be sources but what are we basing the sourcing off of? Guideline #5 on The two or more albums that were released on EMPIRE or are we basing the sourcing off of documentation that the subject is on EMPIRE? I cannot simply tell the subject these things but you basically saying that there needs to be more articles that say point blank "the subject is with EMPIRE"? because if that is what you are saying then that's exactly why I am trying to get a stub article approved so more information can be done. Its kind of like job experience, the job's used to train you on site but told you to have some skills to bring but now a days job experience they want you to have 5 years experience before hand....a stub article is the former. The things you all are saying is great information on how to expand a stub article and the fact that you are all doing the research and fact checking the information I give its basically already a stub article on its way for expansion but it just got jumbled up in a Afd.
Stub wikipedia defintion: A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs.
So we can all at least agree that the subject's stub article provides some useful information and is capable of expansion? I do not mind doing more extensive research but I am only pleading for the stub article to remain so the community can help me expand on it.
Does that make sense?
There are many sources about the subject and their music but if there needs to be more sources about the subject being with EMPIRE then please consider allowing the subject to keep their stub article while expansion and research is done. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:BLP is policy and it requires strong sourcing. I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  //  Timothy ::  talk  14:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Im withdrawing the article. Wikipedia editors involved are unreliable, biased, unfriendly, and moving the goal posts. You all have made this a terrible and unfriendly experience AND ALL FOR JUST A STUB ARTICLE. The editors have changed my entire views on Wikipedia I did not think this would be such a terrible experience. They have been nothing but unfriendly, biased, and they were not afraid to move the goal post when they were shown up with evidence. This the last comment I will be making here. Can someone please remove the subject's page so I am not getting notifications from you guys anymore? Thank you and I hope you all have a bad day! @ Duffbeerforme@ Jjj1238@ Philipnelson99@ Shellwood@ Skynxnex@ TimothyBlue@ Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The page author blanked the page, presumably because they were unhappy with the AfD. I think it's best to let this process play out before requesting speedy deletion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 16:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I request a speedy deletion. I am uninterested in this and do not wish to partake in it any longer. You all have made this a terrible experience and I am not going to deal with it any longer. The subject will be fine without a Wikipedia and at this point a Wikipedia or a stub article is not worth all of this drama. Goal post moving is one thing but continuous Goal post moving? id rather would opt out of the game then continue playing with cheaters. I request a speedy deletion. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia so this will be the last comment I make on here. Bunkytrap34 ( talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Bunkytrap34: I would rather not get into this discussion, but I think you are being very immature in regards to this discussion. No goal posts were moved, maybe you just misunderstood the criteria or had it poorly explained to you. As Skynxnex tried to explain to you, meeting #5 alone does not guarantee an individual will receive an article. Assuming he does meet notability guidelines, he also needs to have reliable sources and significant coverage that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I have seen none of this coverage for Icetre that would warrant an article even if #5 is met. And further, I have still yet to see proof that #5 has been met. From everything I've looked at, the sourcing you are attempting to use to claim Icetre is signed to the EMPIRE record label instead points to a distribution deal, also I'm seeing a lot of failures of WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:OR, plus pretty much none of this is coming from reliable sources overall. I urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you decide to undertake major editing projects such as creating an entire article. It should be obvious that a screenshot on Facebook of a website cannot be considered a reliable source for information on Wikipedia. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:56, 29 November 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 Samuel Edward Konkin III#Political opinions. Star Mississippi 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

New Libertarian Manifesto

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

This article has existed more or less as a perma-stub since its creation in 2008. All of its references are primary sources, with only brief one-line reviews taken from the "Praise" section of the book itself. I found only one passing reference to it in only one of my sources (Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, 2020), as a small part of a broader section about Konkin. As this manifesto doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines, I propose that this article be merged into/redirected to the article on Samuel Edward Konkin III. Grnrchst ( talk) 18:11, 22 November 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 19:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

ST Mary's School Chattogram

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

Sources indicate the school does exist. It does, however fail WP:GNG/ WP:ORG. Kleuske ( talk) 17:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I don't see the slightest hint of notability here, and there's a severe lack of any useful information at all. signed, Willondon ( talk) 18:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Non notable elementary school. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:41, 23 November 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. Daniel ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Rejoice! Musical Soul Food

Rejoice! Musical Soul Food (  | 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 does not meet the WP:GNG as a radio format. Let'srun ( talk) 16:43, 22 November 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. Daniel ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Borderline Records

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

Non-notable record label. No google hits except Wikipedia mirrors. I think this may be a hoax. -- Viennese Waltz 15:31, 22 November 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. Daniel ( talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Indian Chimney Falls

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

Can't find really anything online in reliable sources about this waterfall. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's rather sad how well-intentioned cleanup of external link spam for a farm business gave us rubbish for 19 years. This would have qualified as speedily deleteable and caught by New Pages patrol the following year. Anyway, there's not enough context from the original to know where these waterfalls are. They almost certainly aren't called this, and there are several possibilities. Our article on Salmon Creek (Cayuga Lake) needs improvement, but this is zero use to us in that regard. We might as well improve the right article(s) directly. Delete. Uncle G ( talk) 20:45, 22 November 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 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Subhash Misra

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

Seems like there are COI issues since page was first written and reads as promotion. Nothing to suggest the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion on en.wiki - even if there is, the page needs complete rewrite and WP:TNT JMWt ( talk) 14:54, 22 November 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 Krypton. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Vathlo Island

Vathlo Island (  | 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)

Prodded in 2019 by User:TTN, slightly improved but sadly this is still effectively a plot summary with passing info on what (few) media this niche location appeared in. Fails WP:GNG. The best I can find is the cited [38] (Gizmodo), but that mentions it in passing (few sentences). It has a bit of analysis but I think that's too little ( WP:SIGCOV is not met). Unless someone can find better sources (my BEFORE, as noted, failed), I can only suggest an WP:ATD-R to the List of DC Universe locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Looking again I am fine with a merge to Krypton (comics) (but not to List of DC Universe locations), too, as much of the discussion in the secondary sources is of the relationship of the population of Vathlo Island to the rest of Kryptonian society. Not on the basis of WP:GNG but Rorshacma's WP:NOPAGE argument. And the content then spills over into Kryptonian and Ethnic stereotypes in comics#Black. Daranios ( talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Krypton (comics) - The The Ages of Superman book does look like a good source, but the other available sources are pretty brief mentions. But, regardless, I do believe this is a WP:NOPAGE situation, where the topic is better covered as part of the broader subject for the added context that presenting the information in that way would provide. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:38, 22 November 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 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WALTR

WALTR (  | 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 software. Sources are routine news coverage. Developer also has no article, so no reasonable redirect term. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: I looked for sources, and all that comes up is Mac World, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors, and similar sources. I'd say merge with the article about Softorino, but that doesn't exist, and Softorino also doesn't seem to be notable. Cortador ( talk) 13:51, 22 November 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 ‎ nomination withdrawn. Graham87 ( talk) 02:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Holyman House

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

It exists and has some mentions in sources, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 12:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • comment: Here’s a source that I found that seems to establish WP:N:

[ [39]]. AriTheHorse 14:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep – article now meets WP:N for WP:BUILDING as much well-referenced detail has been added since the nomination was made. -- Oronsay ( talk) 03:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Remove nomination per comments above. Thanks for proving me wrong, Boleyn ( talk) 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pavan Sadineni

Pavan Sadineni (  | 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 film director or screenwriter. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - per nom; I was shocked for few mnts, when I saw this nomination, This article is in here and author of this article they creates this article is on article mainspace, and I don't see any Notability for this subject, so article can be deleted,This article is original article already exist in Draft Namespace. ~~ αvírαm| (tαlk) 03:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Aviram7, this subject meets WP:NDIRECTOR SNG, not WP:GNG. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:NDIRECTOR as he has directed five notable films. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per WP:FILMMAKER. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. He has directed 3 movies and 5 web series'. There are problems with the article's tone and wording. But AFD is not cleanup. For this reason, while I was reviewing it, I marked it with tone concerns. Some Telugu-language (పవన్ సాదినేని) sources were also found using a Google search. Thilsebatti ( talk) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please let me know the corrections needed. I am new to Wikipedia. Help me please. Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk) 13:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I changed the content as required. Please check and approve. Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If you don't know about him that's your problem. He is well known in states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk) 13:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with both !votes above that he meets WP:NDIRECTOR. The award he won is a clear confirmation of that.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: OTT is a minor award. David notMD ( talk) 16:31, 24 November 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 Morden (AtD). Daniel ( talk) 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Morden Baptist Church

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this church in Merton, London, and added five references. One is a primary source (the Charity Commission website). Two of the others are local papers and are short articles of a few sentences. The fourth is significant coverage in the Baptist Times. The fifth is one sentence about the church's war memorial. There is a passing mention of the church in this book, which I have not added. I cannot find other coverage to add. I do not think the church is notable under WP:NCHURCH, WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Coverage is run of the mill. It has been tagged as a local interest article which may not be notable since 2010. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That's odd - I see the sentence you quote, but the guidance also reads "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". So it both explicitly excludes and includes churches? Tacyarg ( talk) 00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not very clear but I think it means if they pass WP:NCORP that's great but if they don't they can just pass WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes its a building not an organization though the church may have one. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Prob delete - on the one hand, it is highly likely that a British religious institution of this age would have RS. Late 19 century churches often had local newspaper coverage and maybe well feature in books written about local history. On the other hand, it seems curlish to expect anyone other than interested editors to have to go to the effort of finding them. So unless someone finds more RS we can assess (I can't at present even though I believe it probably exists), I'm going to say WP:TNT on a largely promotional page until/unless someone who has access to appropriate sources can rewrite. JMWt ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Morden and add a couple of the found sources (particularly the 1935 one) there. It's a somewhat prominent building with an active congregation, but not of wide enough interest to warrant its own article. It appears the original article was written for promotion, rather than to describe a genuinely notable building. Sionk ( talk) 16:59, 25 November 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 opinions remain split so none is likely to emerge. A move can be handled editorially, with RM if needed. Star Mississippi 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alim Abdallah

Alim Abdallah (  | 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)

Seemingly falls short of WP:BIO: no military decorations mentioned, deputy commander (rather than commander) of a brigade, circumstance of death doesn't stand out among others - KIA (exchange of fire). Likely WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister talk 12:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Brandmeister talk 12:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's coverage of his death, but doesn't appear to be notable before his death. Dying doesn't change notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:BDP1E applies. WWGB ( talk) 01:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There was significant coverage also before his death, totally undermining the opinions above. While all policies mentioned before me are important, none of these apply to Lt Colonel Abdallah. gidonb ( talk) 16:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There was significant coverage before his death and even after with recent articles still mentioning his name. I understand Brandmeister reasoning but I don't see it being applicable in this case. There's enough coverage for this page to remain up. Nintenga ( talk) 00:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Of the references currently in the article, none are coverage prior to his death. I haven't found any prior sigcov so far that would establish a WP:GNG pass prior to his death but am open to changing my vote should such coverage be produced. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Typical WP:BDP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clear evidence of notability from the sources provided and additional sources not used. We have in-depth coverage from national sources in Israel (which would be enough for notability) and even coverage in China from Xinhua News Agency, in India from Hindustan Times, in Australia from Australian Financial Review, and in the United States. Thmymerc ( talk) 11:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. There's clearly WP:GNG from international and international WP:SIGCOV on the article subject. Not sure how this qualifies under WP:MEMORIAL (so we shouldn't have articles about dead people?). Would note that editors are claiming that WP:BDP1E is not a deletion rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issam Abdallah (obvious caveats for WP:OTHERSTUFF), but we should be consistent, especially in the context of this contentious topic area. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agreed with Lightburst and Iskandar323; no evidence of notability beyond the sad event of his passing. I am not seeing the sigcov, prior to death, that is referred to by the above keep !votes. Resonant Distortion 08:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (weak) and move to Death of Alim Abdallah. Sources in the article show this meets GNG as an event; as a BIO, it is WP:BIO1E, but this guides to write an article about the event. This often occurs with 1E bios. I think the Haaretz, Xinhua, plus [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] are the sources that I think can sustain an EVENT article. There is a legitimate question of WP:LASTING, but I think the international level of coverage cancels this out and WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies.  //  Timothy ::  talk  12:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Death of Alim Abdallah as Timothy suggested above - there are sources, but they are about the guy's death i.e. the event, not the person.
  • Comment. Some of the participants here claim that Abdallah was not covered prior to his death. Such claims should not be counted as the sources from 2022 are right in the article. gidonb ( talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Before Alim Abdallah died, he already had reliable sources. Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 15:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Death of Alim Abdallah. I have struck my previous delete !vote and changed to move as TimothyBlue suggested above. The event has much greater claim to notability compared to the person - I would expect WP:VICTIM to apply. The delete votes however remain correct - the coverage prior to the event of his death does not appear to sufficiently demonstrate notability. The 2022 coverage appears to constitute 2 sources; one of which is a passing mention ( [45]) and the second offer appears to be a brief 3 sentence profile which appears to be routine local coverage [46]. Resonant Distortion 19:25, 26 November 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 02:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Glen T. Martin

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

Though I created this article, looking back to it after gaining more editing experience I find it as only list of non-notable books by a non-notable writer. Just one award by person can't justify the whole article in my opinion and experience at Wikipedia. -- BeLucky ( talk) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment I removed the WP:A7 because the article contains a credible claim of significance, specifically that the subject received the Gusi Peace Prize the "Nobel Peace Prize of the East". Further, WP:NACADEMIC point 2 states that a person is notable if "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". A Noble Peace Prize would automatically confer notability, is receipt of the "Nobel Peace Prize of the East" significant and prestigious enough to confer notability? That is for the community to decide. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D ( talk) 23:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think it is wise to derail the AFD by drawing in other editors to comment on the discussion on BeLucky's talk page, the ANI post, and the issues revolving around the PROD. All of that has no bearing on the AFD. We should keep our attentions on notability policy in this discussion thread as it relates to this particular article. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4 We can cleanup the list of books as it doesn't pass the WP:AUTHOR criteria? -- BeLucky ( talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That is an editorial decision to address after this AFD closes. WP:AUTHOR is a policy about determining the notability of authors for article inclusion. It isn't meant to address what content should be included within an article on a notable author. For that you should read WP:Verifiability. We generally keep content that is cited to reliable sources as long as it is presented with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as the subject "has received a well-known and significant award". In looking for sources on the Gusi Peace Prize] itself there appears to be enough coverage on the award in google books and media to make a claim that the award is both well-known and significant. As such, any winner of the Gusi Peace Prize will pass ANYBIO and does not need to demonstrate that they also pass GNG as ANYBIO is an officially recognized WP:SNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looks like a promotional article. Also can be seen in above comments that there is no reliable source which proves about prize.☆★ Sanjeev Kumar ( talk) 05:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The source is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is a video of the Gusi Peace Prize ceremony and his speech upon receiving the award. As such, I don't think the claim of lack of verifiability or unreliability can be made. It would be preferable to have an independent secondary source. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – We cannot write an encyclopedic article about someone who's only won a reward and no one ever wrote about them. Business Standard and The Hindu aren't terrible, but I don't think they're enough to build a biography off of, seeing as they are not about Martin specifically. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The organization of which he is president had its article deleted by AfD in 2019, although it was later re-created. The winners of the Gusi Peace Prize that I could find listed do not convince me of its significance. I don't think either of those things can be taken as conferring notability by themselves. And although one could imagine that these accomplishments could have led to the in-depth published sources that do confer notability, we have no such sources. So I don't see a pass of WP:GNG, and as I said above I also found no evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. Notability too weak. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:17, 25 November 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. Daniel ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

James Freemantle

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. There are a handful of reliable-looking sources out there, but even with them, it still seems like an edge-case. I'm also weary of some of the sources out there, because this seems like such an obvious COI-created article. Whisperjanes ( talk) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, Literature, and United Kingdom. Whisperjanes ( talk) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Nominator comment - To save others some time, the best sources I found were 1: this National Library of Wales blog post [47], and 2: this collector's magazine article [48]. The rest of the sources I've seen are mainly passing mentions, non-independent, or primary sources/interviews. - Whisperjanes ( talk) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - so far I'm not sure. I feel generally that the nom is likely correct that there is limited referencing to show notability. However there do appear to be a number of interviews - and I'm unconvinced that these don't show anything about the individual. I understand the argument but for me if independent publications have decided that someone is worthy of an extended interview, that is showing that they are considered notable. JMWt ( talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is paywalled [49], hits on the name. Nothing else found; I honestly expected to find something about this fellow. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: 3, 6, and 14 are sources per the source tool, so iffy. 9 is red, so no good. Rest are not identified by the source tool/bot. I don't think they help for notability as they don't appear RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:28, 22 November 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 Protestant Christian Church in Bali (selective merge). There hasn't been a whole lot of participation here so per Timothy, encourage a standalone article as a replacement for the impending redirect should sourcing develop. Daniel ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Maha Bhoga Marga

Maha Bhoga Marga (  | 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)

Fully advertising (even in all of the history), and as far as I can tell most of the sources aren't reliable or aren't independent of the subject. At the very least this article needs a rewrite, but in my opinion this looks like a WP:TNT situation. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: @ Suntooooth, this article and the Indonesian Wikipedia version, id:Maha Bhoga Marga, both cite offline refs. Can you give us your assessment of each?
Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't give a thorough response for a few reasons:
  1. I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus;
  2. I don't speak the language of the sources, so everything I'm gathering is from inference and some machine translation; and
  3. I think I probably overstated when I said most of the sources are unreliable or aren't independent, since I can't tell for sure either way with most of them. I'm not sure why I thought most of them were unreliable.
After looking at the sources today, ref 6 (Mastra, I Wayan (2010)) jumps out to me as an autobiography making claims about third-parties (which if I'm interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB correctly seems dubiously reliable) and possibly not independent, although right now I don't have energy for research to determine if I Wayan Mastra is independent of the organisation or not. Ref 4 (Suama, I.N. (1992)) is a thesis, which could be reliable but also may not be, and as I don't speak the language I can't verify whether it's reliable
Sorry I can't give a better answer; I think I was probably a little hasty to condemn the sources when writing my original comment, although the issue of the article being entirely promotional in its entire history is still maybe worth a deletion, and at the very least needs a complete rewrite. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Suntooooth. Well, now it's my turn to claim "I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus" I will try to come back to this in a few days, if possible. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any opinions on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 22 November 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 Omnicom Group. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Deepen Shah

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Plenty of mentions and quotes but everything on the page and what I find in a WP:BEFORE is about the company, not him. CNMall41 ( talk) 07:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello CNMall41, please be requested to exclude Mr. Deepen Shah article for deletion as the details of it are all facts. We will be at your disposal on how or what we can do to make it better and not have it deleted. Thank you.
ToxELB1025
PA for Mr. Shah ToxELB1025 ( talk) 04:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Mr. Shaw's personal assistant? Oaktree b ( talk) 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh dear…. Mccapra ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello Oaktree, Yes. I'm his PA/VA and we are requesting for his article to not be deleted. We will do our best to improve it and provide more supporting details, references and links to it.
Thanks,
Errol ToxELB1025 ( talk) 05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to a newly created Buzzd article; the coverage given is exclusively about that Blackberry app. Coverage in the New York Times is basically an interview with this person and another individual... Otherwise, !delete as not notable due to lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
A redirect would be a good WP:ATD. I think Buzzd is now called "LocalResponse" but not sure if it would meet WP:NCORP. Maybe to Omnicom Group where we could mention that company's purchase of eztxtmsg? -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify There seems to be a thin claim of notability that could be addressed by expansion, though the WP:COI issues are a concern. I would support a redirect, if an appropriate target existed. Alansohn ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not at all clear what article those advocating Redirect want to point this article to. Please identify an existing article. Just one, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the Omicron Group seems ok, with a discussion of the purchase. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:30, 22 November 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 The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars. There's a consensus below (between the delete, merge and redirect opinions) that the article shouldn't be retained. Closing as merge as an AtD that was extensively discussed and I saw no significant opposition to. Daniel ( talk) 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Smokescreen (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:
Smokescreen (Transformers) (  | 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)

Found only toys from my WP:BEFORE; has toys =/= notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC) clerked by Mach61 ( talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Mach61 ( talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Didn't we do this with the sockpuppet guy the other day? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 08:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but I still didn't find anything substantial from my WP:BEFORE 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    What was your Before? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    And is there a reason you're interested in AfDs and won't sign up for an account? Forgive me if that sounds rude, but considering the previous nominator was blocked, renominated AfDs that didn't go their way and seemed interested in evading their block I feel it is a question worth asking. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 18:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete covered by zero RS's. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. this nomination is most likely by a sock of the previous nominator, and as such would fall under bad faith. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 21:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC) striking original vote per Ferret. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep. Nomination was made by the request of a WP:SPA ip at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD request for Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination). Given that the original nominator at the first AFD, Grandmaster Huon, is indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, it is a high probability that this nomination was made as an end around a permanent block by that user. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Where is the evidence that this IP is a sock of the blocked user? I mean, I'm not denying the possibility that they are a sock, but suggesting a connection between the two without evidence doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. Perhaps a CU can assist us. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by CU/blocking admin of Grandmaster Huon I see no connection between this IPv6 editor and Grandmaster Huon, who is not blocked for sockpuppetry but for CIR issues. No comment on the AFD itself, clearing the air on the socking allegation. -- ferret ( talk) 22:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ DrowssapSMM and 4meter4: Be aware that your !votes are essentially invalid as a result, and likely to be ignored by the closer. You may want to evaluate the topic and give a policy based reason for keep as a result. -- ferret ( talk) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ferret My mistake on the sock. I mistook your mention of "multiple accounts" in the block as a sock report. I mainly commented here because I saw the note by Drowssap and agreed a nomination likely made by a blocked user shouldn't stand. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    ( edit conflict) Thanks, Ferret. As I wrote in above, the allegations were made irresponsibly and without evidence. WP:DUCK is generally good advice, but this is just not assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ InfiniteNexus and you are now not assuming good faith of us and are also violating WP:AGF. We are all want to keep the encyclopedia a safe place that is functioning well. Mistakes happen. Be gracious. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did not imply that your action (making an accusation without evidence) was done in bad faith. I said it was irresponsible, meaning you should have done things differently. Assuming good faith doesn't mean one cannot call out another user for a poor decision, even if it was done with good intentions. To be clear, I have no doubt that you meant no malice with the accusation. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Personally I would still like to hear from the nominator; while there is likely a reasonable explanation it is a striking coincidence and IMHO a highly unusual choice of a first edit for a passing unregistered user. That said, I am not sure my word has any weight as I have decided to take a hiatus from editing due to the recent spate of shitty nominations based on entirely Google-based BEFORE making me highly wary of sinking further time into creating content that might get taken out by driveby trolls and the usual mob of axe-grinders. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 01:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • (it is also relevant I feel that the blocked first nominator made attempts to get other users to make nominations by proxy) BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ BoomboxTestarossa An misunderstanding of how IPv6 works is why this has blown up. IPv6 editors frequently change IPs within (generally) a tight range assigned by their ISP. This is completely outside their control. This IPv6 editor has been editing for months and has requested other AFDs in the past. See Special:Contributions/2605:B40:1303:900::/64. This is all one individual, across the different IPs their ISP has assigned them. This is essentially the very first step any sysop takes when reviewing an IPv6 editor. -- ferret ( talk) 01:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning Keep. As with many of the early Transfomers toys, Bellomo's Transformers: Identification and Price Guide has SIGCOV. There's some SIGCOV in Stuart Webb's Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 2: 1987-1989. I am pretty sure this subject this will pass GNG. As is the case with many Transformers characters, there are so many incarnations through toys, comics, TV, movies, games, etc. — siro χ o 05:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I said, has toys =/= notable; I didn't find anything for his incarnations either 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you explain what you mean by "has toys =/= notable"? — siro χ o 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Smokescreen has lots of toys, but that isn't enough to constitute SIGCOV 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 22:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The toys themselves aren't the SIGCOV. SIGCOV about the toys is. — siro χ o 02:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's really just reviews though, not anything substantial 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, the Identification and Price Guide contains only brief descriptions of toys 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the arguments put forth by Siroxo, or at worst merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters per WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 02:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 ( talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's really no RS's to speak of though. 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 20:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Hi random IP person, as you seem to have no problem jumping in on some votes but seem to have missed a direct question, may I again ask what your Before was? I'm guessing by how vociferously you're referencing it that it's not just a Google search and it involved reliable specialist sources that not just any muppet with a browser and a search engine can find, so before I try to squeeze some actual research on the subject into a busy work week it would be handy to know which sources aren't worth checking. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      I performed a search on Google, Google Books, and Google News. All I found that was, in fact, about this specific character was either from toy sites or Transformers fansites.
      Admittedly, I should have been more specific. 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED ( talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      So... you've done a Google search? Yikes... fair play for the candour at least. Will see if I can juggle some stuff around and do actual Before at some point in the next few days. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 14:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      Also, I don't see anyone providing RS's 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED ( talk) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      And I don't see good Before. We're all full of useful observations today. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    ❓ If it's "per nomination" your !vote should be "delete". InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD discussion went astray with speculation on the nominator so let's focus on notability and sources. If you are proposing a Redirect, please specify the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This article has no inline citations and very poor sourcing. I don't see which are RS and which aren't and I'm not going to re-write the article using the sources given. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No reliable sources, pure plot summary and WP:FANCRUFT.The arguments made are without a doubt some of the most atrocious examples of WP:But there must be sources! I've seen in the short time I've been editing here. There have been no compelling arguments made, and "your before sucks, therefore this must be notable! No I'm not providing sources, I'm too busy!" drives me absolutely batty.
    Industrial Insect (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Don't think I or anyone else said shit Before means notable, just that shit Before means shit Before. Maybe stop trying to drag AFDs into sub-fanboard fallacies to make your case, eh? FWIW I'm not crazy about my work schedule either but being a freelancer in a cost of living crisis means going through issues of Toyfare sometimes has to wait. Sorry you seem to have taken that personally. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
        I for one appreciate what you can do, when you can do it. :) (I think you knew that already, though.) BOZ ( talk) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for this trainwreck of a nomination. Before closing this as No consensus, let's give it a few more days. Maybe the eyes of a different AFD closer can see a rough consensus where I just see chaos.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 22 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure (  | 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)

Unneeded CFORK of Reliance Industries#Reliance Industrial Infrastructure, stub article is actually shorter than the entry on the main Summary page. There is no need for a one paragraph article when the Summary page already has the information.

Gails GNG and NORG. Single source in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

No objection to a consensus redirect (a bold redirect would be rv) to Reliance Industries#Reliance Industrial Infrastructure.  //  Timothy ::  talk  17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Eastmain's comments above are compelling.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Disagreement rests on whether or not these are two separate companies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 22 November 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 Boko Haram#Campaign of violence. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

June 2015 Monguno bombing

June 2015 Monguno bombing (  | 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 story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage or secondary analysis. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Seems to have reasonable coverage and to be an important event. I'm a firm believer that an event in the present day requires different sourcing standards than one that happened 40 years ago, in the same vein if this event took place in the USA or western Europe there would be significantly more coverage, as it is you have two high quality sources covering it and that feels appropriate as a keep given the geography. BHC ( talk) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge to Boko Haram or something. 1 sentence in the "campaign of violence" section about how a bomb went off at an abandoned camp of theirs. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - as is always an issue with crime article AfDs, I must stress, notability ≠ death toll. Yes, several people died, but there is no other information available on this, and by all accounts I can't even tell if this was on purpose or not. It was never covered or mentioned after as far as I can tell. Add to the section Boko Haram#Campaign of violence - there is nothing else to say besides this one paragraph so we are losing absolutely no information. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 01:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Editors are divided between those arguing to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 22 November 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 02:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Parmatma Ek Sevak

Parmatma Ek Sevak (  | 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 noteworthy organization. No WP:RS coverage found. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

2. Chief Minister of Maharashtra praised their work. https://x.com/cmomaharashtra/status/815528360415621121?s=46&t=WEvzL9ICcN6GgmjJ3HjA4g

3. Govt of India, Department of Post, released a post ticket featuring founder of the sect, released by vice-president of India. https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/amp/vice-president-of-india-released-a-commemorative-postage-stamp-of-baba-jumdev-1380607652-1

4. The article does need a cleanup, but it certainly meets notability criteria. Not many sources available in English as the sect works in marginalized sections and is not well-documented in academia. GD ( talk) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Being thanked by someone on Twitter isn't notable. This article has one source and the rest appears to be copied verbatim from the scriptures/holy texts this religion uses. I can't find mention of them. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete based the lack of sources I can find in English. If there are sources shown in other languages I’m happy to reconsider. Mccapra ( talk) 20:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No WP:SIGCOV. Interestingly someone in the early page history pasted a huge dump of unsourced text that is probably a copyvio (though the detector doesn't come up with any significant hits) that still lives on the page today. It should have been reverted but never was. Uhai ( talk) 12:24, 25 November 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 02:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Mosaic Publishing

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nagol0929 ( talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - sources currently in the article are either an interview, or a few database entries for some of their products - none of which help establish notability. I couldn't find any any additional sources either. As is, fails the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 26 November 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. While I'm sympathetic to the nominator's opinion about the state of this article, I see a consensus to Keep it. Here's hoping that it can get some attention from interested editors. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Progressive_utilization_theory

AfDs for this article:
Progressive_utilization_theory (  | 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 page is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed.

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 04:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, possible WP:CSK#3. Meets GNG with the independent references in article, even if we don't consider Sarkar independent. Friedman and Crovetto in particular have several pages of SIGCOV each. These references are from within the past 15 years, and even that hadn't been the case, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. A quick search of Google Scholar finds more. — siro χ o 05:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    FWIW, the bar for AfD submission is pretty low, the nomination raises notability issues, I wouldn't consider this a no rationale CSK. Quality of reasoning is different from absence of reason. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Quality of reasoning can fall under CSK criterion 3. Absence is CSK 1, and you are correct that would not apply. There is indeed effectively no bar for AfD submissions. — siro χ o 23:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Most of the google results are either pages selling Sarkar's books, foundations based on Sarkar's work, or articles based on this page. So not many independent sources. I don't see why this needs to be separate from Sarkar's page. The issue is that a reasonable edit of this page would make it a stub. Imitationsasquatch ( talk) 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm sympathetic to where the nomination is coming from given the contents of the article in its present state: far too reliant on sources lacking in independence of the subject. That said, AfD is not clean up. However, concur with Siroxo, there is sourcing that indicates the theory itself is notable and given the size of the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article, this is an acceptable fork. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Sarkar article isn't terribly long and the PUT page could be condensed into a section. Imitationsasquatch ( talk) 03:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I don't see a policy-based reason to delete. The article needs cleanup, but that falls under WP:DINC as Goldsztajn mentions. The article has enough sources that appear to be independent of the subject to meet GNG. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 21:14, 28 November 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ PopoDameron ⁠ talk 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

GPT4-Chan

GPT4-Chan (  | 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)

​ ​ ​ ​For the reasons given in the three rejections on Draft:GPT4-Chan, this article is evidently not ready for the mainspace and has not demonstrated notability. PopoDameron ⁠ talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PopoDameron ⁠ talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (reluctantly): I would argue the sources provided establish notability, as there are several of them, they are independent, and the coverage seems to be significant in the few that I checked out. It's not the best article I've ever seen, and I really hate to give the creators of the software an eternal perch on one of the few reputable corners of the internet, but it meets our criteria for notability and verifiability. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    In my opinion, in the best case, the article is, even if potentially notable, not ready for the main space and should be worked on as a draft. Most of what has been written is not usable and does not belong here at all. PopoDameron ⁠ talk 03:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Since the topic is covered by multiple sources, it does establish notability and verifiability. However, it is understandable that such a controversial, inflammatory, and possibly harmful topic could not be welcomed on the wiki.
    The article could either be left up so multiple people can correct, improve, and make sure the article just informs and does not promote the topic, or it could possibly be moved back into draft space and worked on until it meets the requirements and/or safety standards of those who would want to remove it. That way, we can make sure the wiki is not promoting this topic and people's concerns can be addressed by their contributions to the article. Targed ( talk) 04:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Consider: this was a valuable and noteworthy social experiment. An AI was trained over a toxic environment, and reflected this toxicity. It's important to get a visceral sense of the potential dangers of AI, and Yannic's work did just that. As an analogy: YouTube censors harm, so you can find many videos of miraculous car accident-avoidances but no grizzly car accidents. This will give the viewer a false psychological sense that a miraculous escape is likely, while a grizzly accident is unlikely. So is this YouTube policy ultimately helpful or harmful? 2A0E:1D47:D201:6300:A83D:5A11:143E:127E ( talk) 10:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG via the references in the article including Engadget, Vice, Fortune, The Register, and a staff article at Thenextweb. A search finds enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage in academic sources as well eg [50] [51](later published in IEEE conference), [52], (i.e. even if we consider this topic an event, it has become a WP:CASESTUDY) There may be unreliable sourcing in the article (I see a blog, a substack, and some other iffy stuff), but we can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. — siro χ o 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Extensive coverage in non-primary sources clearly establish notability. The subject matter being controversial or inflammatory is irrelevant to its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Draftifying would only slow down work on improving it. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (withdrawn). As other editors have said, I can see now that the sources are definitely notable enough for WP:GNG and the article isn't nearly bad enough to WP:TNT. I might have been a bit hasty in doing this when I saw that the article had been rejected three times and no improvements were made before moving it to the main space... PopoDameron ⁠ talk 19:06, 22 November 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 02:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of companies of Australia

List of companies of Australia (  | 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 is an incomplete, random selection of companies in Australia with no real parameters as has been noted on the talk page. It has everything from large listed companies to small family businesses. The article may have been more relevant when created in 2002, but as Wikipedia has evolved, lists of companies with more defined boundaries have emerged, e.g. List of largest Australian companies, List of banks in Australia etc making this one redundant. The only criteria for inclusion appears to be that the organisation operates through a Ltd or Pty Ltd company. Hamienet ( talk) 02:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Seems far too ill-defined a criterion to have a list, especially when more narrowly-tailored lists exist. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with everything above. Bduke ( talk) 04:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I tend to agree that the current list is overly broad. But I don't think history needs deleting. I'd suggest cutting this down to the "See also" section and renaming to Lists of companies in Australia to improve the navigational utility. Preserving history can be useful for editors looking to continue to improve organization of articles about Australian companies. — siro χ o 06:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Have no idea what this page is doing here. Pure clutter. MaskedSinger ( talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Narrowly defined list of companies articles are a better alternative. Knox490 ( talk) 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't necessarily disagree with anyone above but looking at Category:Lists of companies by country it appears this type of list is very common. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk) 11:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, other countries have these lists too. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. You can't expect a single article to include every company in a country with millions of people. This article should be improved instead of being deleted. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 16:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The fact that Wikipedia is not a database is the exact reason this page should be deleted. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:KITCHENSINK. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TarnishedPath talk 00:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 02:16, 23 November 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 move‎. to List of cities in the Dutch Carribean and then editorially re-scope the article.

Note that this discussion can't force the merge of List of cities in Aruba into this new article as a mandate, so I would encourage others to do this editorially (either by being bold, or alternatively by opening a discussion on the talk page of the Aruba list). Daniel ( talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles (  | 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)

Country that no longer exists. Only one source listed. Interstellarity ( talk) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, Netherlands, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP. It's grouped by island so is an informational list, and it's also a navigational list for a reader seeking information on cities in the former country. The lack of existence of the country is not a problem for the list. — siro χ o 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of cities in the Dutch Caribbean and merge List of cities in Aruba into it. I agree with nom that we don't need an article on a defunct entity, but there probably should be one for the broader topic rather than pages for the individual islands, especially because in most of these places the cities are not politically independent. Reywas92 Talk 14:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agree with merge as stated. Keeps the information in a relevant list. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see the point of moving an article that editors are advocating Merging to a different target article. You can always create a Redirect from the suggested new page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Liz, I think Reywas92 is suggesting a "reverse merge" of List of cities in Aruba into this article, plus a rename. I'm supportive of that in principle, but I don't think it's a proper outcome of AfD as that article is not tagged. Effectively that's a keep/move, with broad support for a related followup BOLD merge that would probably not be performed by the closer. — siro χ o
  • Move as suggested by Reywas92 with his merge into included! Thank you, Reywas92! No real case for deletion or unchanged keeping. The list itself can use updates. gidonb ( talk) 14:47, 22 November 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 02:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Julio Salas

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 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 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Edgar Pineda (footballer)

Edgar Pineda (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)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Diego Rangel (footballer, born 1997)

Diego Rangel (footballer, born 1997) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If we do delete this article, which is a potential in favour of deletion, then the this requested move will be irrelevant until another Diego Rangel comes onto Wikipedia. I have no objections on this 1997 footballer to be deleted at this point unless it is expanded. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 19:32, 23 November 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 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Guillermo Martín (footballer)

Guillermo Martín (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)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 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 Princess Caroline of Monaco#Activities. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Peter Le Marchant Trust

Peter Le Marchant Trust (  | 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 significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. This is despite having a very notable patron. LibStar ( talk) 01:55, 22 November 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 ΜClinux. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

LeanXcam

LeanXcam (  | 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 proof of notability, not good sources. — Panamitsu (talk) 01:40, 22 November 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 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Lana Harrison

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

There is hardly any third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Has not won any major tournaments and has a relatively low highest ranking. LibStar ( talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. I can't find any coverage of her in reliable secondary sources, apart from passing mentions in routine squash game coverage. Unlike Abbie Palmer, where I just objected to the decision to PROD (although interestingly their highest rankings aren't that far apart!). Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sorry to squash the hopes of those wanting this page to stay but it goes nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:44, 23 November 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 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Anton Wormann

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

Self-promotion attempt by Wormann, lacks independent coverage to prove his notability KevinTextor ( talk) 00:08, 22 November 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, no remaining recommendations to delete. (non-admin closure) — siro χ o 07:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Night and the Doctor

AfDs for this article:
Night and the Doctor (  | 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)

Proposed for deletion for lack of notability Hektor ( talk) 08:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete Lets look at the sources. 


Douglas Mackinnon [@drmuig] (November 18, 2019). 
"I directed this!" (
Tweet). Retrieved 25 June 2021 – via 
Twitter.

This sources is a tweet by the director, doesnt establish notability. 

The Night's Tale (DVD). 
Doctor Who Confidential. Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series. 21 November 2012.

This is Doctor Who Confidential which is a behind the scenes show. While this would be good for production information its not independent. 

Berriman, Ian (22 October 2011). 
"New Doctor Who mini-episodes reviewed". 
SFX. Retrieved 8 January 2012.

This one talks about the miniepisodes directly so it would agree this is good. 

Sinnott, John (23 November 2011). 
"Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series (Blu-ray)". 
DVD Talk. Retrieved 24 March 2013.

DVD Talk doenst seem reliable and seems like a collection of user generated reviews. 

Jane Anders, Charlie (17 November 2011). 
"Your Magical First Glimpse at the Bonus Scenes on the Doctor Who Season Six DVDs!". 
io9. Retrieved 27 March 2012.

I cant say much as to this as I am not familure with it. 

Jusino, Teresa (22 November 2011). 
"Great New Scenes from the Doctor Who Series 6 DVD/Blu-ray". 
Tor.com. Retrieved 26 March 2013.

Once again I am not familure with this but this seems to be about the dvd release itself, and not the specifc story. 

Blumburg, Arnold T (25 January 2012). 
"Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series Blu-ray Review". 
IGN. Retrieved 24 March 2013.

Same story as with above about the dvd release, it does talk about it for a paragraph, and not particularly indebth more like a plot summary. Of these sources none of them are particularly great. So Delete is the proper course of action Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment DVD Talk is definitely considered a reliable source. Search the notice boards. It's been discussed and is used regularly in notbabilty discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
A story about the DVD release is an appropriate source for an article that, among other things, discusses the DVD release. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I honestly don't see the issue with the article, either. Furthermore, this is a part of Doctor Who canon. In " The Husbands of River Song", in the final scene, River discusses with the Twelfth Doctor about why he kept cancelling their date to Darillium. During this, she mentions the "night there were two of you", a reference to the "Last Night" episode. This is also referenced in the episode's Wikipedia article under "Continuity" - a sourced reference - and that has never been questioned or challenged. So, if one of these interconnected mini-stories is connected to the main show's canon, then they all are connected. As such, this entire collection is canonical and notable. Ooznoz ( talk) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Ooznoz reply
  • Keep as nominator. For reasons leasted above, in particular regarding canon. Hektor ( talk) 07:28, 24 November 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_November_22&oldid=1187615998"