Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

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 keep‎. Consensus among participants is that this article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aidana Otorbaeva[edit]

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

Procedural nomination in lieu of a malformed nomination by User:MercuryOxide, whose original reasoning was "Only has one sentence and 11 sources". I am neutral; further information below. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Kyrgyzstan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is, at the time of writing, less than six hours old (in my opinion, this is too soon for AfD). It was created at 18:13 UTC. Most of the sourcing is in Russian. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid criteria cited for deletion. It may be a micro-stub, but that is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Looks like a clear failure of WP:BEFORE. See also WP:EAGER. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Best and most well known player in Kyrzgystani female football history. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even from Limon and RFERL alone, this passes WP:GNG. It's quite remarkable that a female footballer from Kyrgyzstan gets coverage like this in more than one language, which, if anything, strengthens my wish for this to be kept. Quite a few of the sources are largely interviews but there's enough independent content on some of these for it to pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 13:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, proper BEFORE not done.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 18:13, 28 September 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! 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sevil Soyer[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search doesn't return much. The creator of the article was only active between late February and early March 2011, and all except two of their edits are on this article, and the rest are also related to the topic, indicating possible COI: [1] Aintabli (talk) 23:44, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recompose[edit]

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

This seems to be a self-promotional article written by an employee of Recompose (just like the Katrina Spade article). Even ignoring the self-promotion, it seems that Recompose fails to meet the notability criteria. Kitzing (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but tone down promotional content. References 6, 10, and 12 (Seattle Times) establish WP:SIGCOV and are both independent and non-passing in nature. I agree that the article seems rather self-serving and should be trimmed down considerably. But the company does have detailed coverage in secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WeirdNAnnoyed, I have concerns with regards to the Seattle Times coverage by Kiley. Can you point clearly to a passage independent of people directly affiliated with the company, other than the short quote from Van Slyke (who said the emissions and odors from NOR are expected to be minimal compared to other operations they review, including cremations, demolitions of asbestos-filled buildings and marijuana cultivation. Recompose’s air permit requires no visible emissions from the facility, adequate filters, no detectable odors and independent review by a third party every three months.)? That segment does not seem secondary to me. Or, perhaps a second source? The BBC coverage mentioned by Sionk (as currently cited in the article) seem to be entirely quotes from Spade and Carpenter-Boggs, so I'm excluding it from my consideration for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I understand...Reference 10 provides lots of background information and analysis that is independent of the subject, which is the definition of a secondary source. There are some quotes in there, but it's not an interview. The two paragraphs beginning with "The Recompose process..." give a summary of what the company does without relying on quotes and without sounding overly promotional. I guess I don't know what you mean by "independent of people directly affiliated with the company". Of course the articles get their information from people directly affiliated with the company; that doesn't mean they aren't reliable secondary sources. If those pieces had consisted of nothing but direct quotes or on-the-spot, breaking-news type coverage, then that would be different. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how those paragraphs could be independent or secondary. We could take it to RSN? Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there is a little secondary coverage in that article. The second clause of the Van Slyke quote could be that, and the paragraph immediately before the two you selected covering pricing would be considered secondary as well, but I don't see any analysis in those two paragraphs specifically. As for independence, WP:ORGIND's requirement for intellectual independence doesn't necessarily explicitly say that it's stronger than "sufficient paraphrasing to be out of quote marks and still not be plagiarism," but it still very strongly implies it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis the company has clearly attracted more than passing interest, in a number of major news outlets, and internationally (BBC). Sionk (talk) 09:27, 24 September 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. A discussion about a possible rename can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodnight Kiwi Stories[edit]

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

Searches find only one secondary, in-depth coverage source (ref #1). Only other sources found are IMDb or primary. Unnotable. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Edward-Woodrow: I've just expanded the article and count seven (secondary) sources other than IMDB. —Panamitsu (talk) Please ping on reply 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per expansion by Panamitsu.-gadfium 18:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; additional reliable secondary sources have been added showing that the subject meets WP:GNG. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Goodnight Kiwi. I believe the editors above may be mistaken, they are mostly covering the parent subject Goodnight Kiwi and not specifically this subject Goodnight Kiwi Stories. - Indefensible (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Goodnight Kiwi animation is the inspiration for the "stories" series, but they are definitely different things. I can see how you might think otherwise, as the latter seems to get called "Goodnight Kiwi" as well in a number of the sources and is sometimes termed a reboot/revitalisation of the Goodnight Kiwi. But it has enough coverage in secondary sources to, to my mind, justify its own article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the refs in the article for Goodnight Kiwi or Goodnight Kiwi Stories? Very few of them seem to mention "Goodnight Kiwi Stories," I am not really sure which are relevant since I am unfamiliar with the subject. Might be helpful to have a table. But if the articles do not specifically name the subject, is there really enough delineation for a separate article? Even if they are for Goodnight Kiwi Stories, I still doubt there is enough standalone notability. - Indefensible (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Goodnight Kiwi (TV series) per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article should be renamed because sources call it Goodnight Kiwi, not The Goodnight Kiwi Stories.
    1. Ward, Tara. "Review: Kids' TV show Goodnight Kiwi is short but very, very sweet". The Spinoff. Archived from the original on 2023-09-24. Retrieved 2023-09-24.

      The review notes: "It might seem a bit weird to watch someone reading a book through the television, but Goodnight Kiwi makes the stories burst into life. Colourful animations make the illustrations move and dance, and the celebrities breathe energy and rhythm into each story. Like any good book, Goodnight Kiwi transports you to another world for a few precious minutes, a sweet reprieve from the real world to appeal to frazzled adults and tired children alike."

    2. Murray, Anna (2019-11-12). "Anna Murray: Time to say goodnight (Kiwi) to 24-hour telly". The New Zealand Herald. ProQuest 2313604863. Archived from the original on 2023-09-24. Retrieved 2023-09-24.

      The article notes: "... the Goodnight Kiwi is back. Having undergone a bit of a “glow-up”, our animated kiwi and his cat friend are on TVNZ OnDemand in a new series of short bedtime stories. The two icons are joined by some other slightly less famous Kiwis, like Jeremy Wells, Hilary Barry, the Topp Twins, Stacey Morrison and Oscar Kightley, as they read popular bedtime story books, with illustrations that come to life on screen. The first two episodes feature What Now’s Evander Brown reading The Bomb and Madeleine Sami and Jackie van Beek teaming up to read Baa Baa Smart Sheep. The latter duo are especially good at reading a bedtime story. So much so, that if the whole TV and film career ever falls over for them, they’d have a good back-up gig telling stories about smart sheep and quirky turkeys. Having these celebs reading New Zealand picture books is certainly a very cute way of bringing the Goodnight Kiwi back to our screens, but I have a really wild idea: why not bring him back for his original mission — marking the end of the TV transmission for the night?"

    3. "PM will read Goodnight Kiwi". The Post. 2019-12-10. p. 2. ProQuest 2322790876.

      The article notes: "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will read the Christmas Day story in TVNZ's revamped Goodnight Kiwi series. Ardern will read classic New Zealand children's book Hairy Maclary From Donaldson's Dairy by Lynley Dodd. ... TVNZ resurrected the Goodnight Kiwi brand last month, 25 years after Kiwi and his mate Cat last shut off the lights and put out the milk bottle to indicate TV2 was shutting down for the day."

    4. "Celebrities read to store listeners". The Daily Post. 2019-12-06. p. A14. ProQuest 2321678216.

      The article notes: "These story sessions are in celebration of TVNZ and The Warehouse bringing back the cultural icon Goodnight Kiwi this week, with famous New Zealand celebrities reading aloud New Zealand bedtime stories. General manager of marketing Anna Lawrence says The Warehouse is thrilled to get behind the cause and help inspire a love of reading among young Kiwis."

    5. Henderson, Calum (2019-11-10). "Now Showing: Goodnight Kiwi". Whanganui Chronicle. ProQuest 2313159501.

      The article notes: "Fair to say I just about hit the roof when I heard they were bringing back the Goodnight Kiwi. “TV doesn’t just end like it did back in the olden days,” I spat furiously, “this makes no sense!” Once I calmed down and actually read the press release it did actually make sense — in fact it sounded like a bloody good idea. The Goodnight Kiwi and his wee cat have picked out some classic Kiwi bedtime stories and wrangled some classic Kiwi talent to read them to us, and got some local artists to do animations for them so our eyes don’t get bored."

    6. Simich, Ricardo (2019-10-26). "Stars bring back Goodnight Kiwi". The New Zealand Herald. ProQuest 2312259878. Archived from the original on 2023-09-24. Retrieved 2023-09-24.

      The article notes: "The iconic Goodnight Kiwi is returning to New Zealand screens next month with a plethora of local celebrities bringing the cultural icon back to life. The famed Kiwi was put to bed for the last time some 25 years ago with the arrival of 24-hour TV. But he will be resurrected with a new TVNZ OnDemand series that will see the animated bird and his cat cuddling up to celebrities who will read popular bedtime story books for young children. Kiwi and Cat's new friends include legendary entertainers the Topp Twins, Seven Sharp's Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells, The Hits' Stacey Morrison, comedians Madeleine Sami, Jackie Van Beek, Urzila Carlson and Oscar Kightley, actors Dean O'Gorman and Jayden Daniels and What Now presenter Evander Brown."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's quite interesting because when they say 'Goodnight Kiwi' they're referring to the character rather than the character (but these sources are about the series). Looking at the series on TVNZ+, they refer the series as both Goodnight Kiwi and The Goodnight Kiwi Stories, but primarily just "Goodnight Kiwi". I saw in one source they wrote Goodnight Kiwi stories (italicising Goodnight Kiwi and not the stories). So it does appear that the series is just called "Goodnight Kiwi", so I support the rename. It should be further noted that Goodnight Kiwi is a sign off animation rather than a TV series so the articles should be kept seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamitsu (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck my vote above. But are the refs for Goodnight Kiwi or Goodnight Kiwi Stories though? If they are for Goodnight Kiwi then it should be a merge still. - Indefensible (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indefensible: Goodnight Kiwi was an animation with music but no spoken words that was aired from 1975 to 1994 and again from 2007 to 2011. Any sources from 2019 to the present day talking about a television show called Goodnight Kiwi which features children's stories, are sources talking about the "stories" TV show.
    I agree with @Cunard, though, it makes sense to rename the article. Goodnight Kiwi should remain the primary topic with a disambiguation hatnote pointing to Goodnight Kiwi (TV series). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) These sources are about the 2019 television series Goodnight Kiwi, though some discuss the animation short Goodnight Kiwi as part of the historical background. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both. So User:Chocmilk03 does that mean you are recommending the article be moved? (Oh, I see Cunard's move recommendation above now.) - Indefensible (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's my view :) I'm not sure if I should be updating my vote to 'keep and move', or if 'keep' is fine and the move can be done separately. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for clarifying. Still think merging the articles would be appropriate because I am skeptical of their having enough separate notability for different articles, but I see the consensus appears to be to keep both currently. - Indefensible (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hallman Jr.[edit]

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

Packed with weasel words like 'assisted', 'helped', 'supported' and 'responsible', this biography of a sports promoter/manager and company CEO does not take us past WP:GNG - stood up on hyper-local media and conflation of the company's activities and his own notability. The company fails WP:NCORP and the subject has not been the recipient of any blue-linked award or recognition. Perhaps notable is the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame article naming a number of nationally notable inductees - of which the subject is not one. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Baseball, Golf, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Carolina. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Criticisms of the writing style (which appear valid) are separate and apart from the issue of notability. The piece is clearly SIGCOV and does not appear to be a hyper local publication (rather a statewide publication). Cbl62 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much the writing style, though there is that, but the use of these terms to obfuscate a minor role in a major thing and consequently pretend notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the SIGCOV piece referenced above, Newspapers.com has some SIGCOV. See this (part 1/part 2), this, this (part 1/part 2), this (part 1/part 2), this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD two days after article creation, damn, give it a minute to breathe and work on something more definite please instead of barreling into AfD for nominations like this. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Martyhall do with it what you will. WP:COI and all that. I lost interest in this site's runnings a long time ago. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 21:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely PROMO, no sourcing found in the NY Times or Gnews, nothing I can see for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much is made of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, but although he won the "Distinguished Sportsman" award, there's no indication that he ever played any sport. Award is largely honorary, [2] says the award is "separated from the induction of members" whatever that means. Other sources are largely business articles, where the articles are often mostly written by the company/person involved. Overall: nearly all of the content is promotional material for an event manager. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more examination. Does the article have problems that can be improved through editing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft. If there are additional sources providing reliable independent coverage, they can be added in the comparatively leisurely six months of automatic leeway given by placement in draft space. BD2412 T 00:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I'm largely persuaded by the paid editing/COI issues revealed at Talk:Gene Hallman Jr.. Given the mutliple examples of SIGCOV I referenced above, the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Nonetheless, the paid editing/COI points persuade me that it makes sense to incubate this in draftspace to see if editors care enough to whip it into shape. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: This subject meets WP:GNG as it stands, but needs a rewrite to resolve the current COI issues it has. User:Let'srun 16:06, 26 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Market America[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and litigation links. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are routine dude. CBS is reporting litigation and that not secondary coverage. It is entirely routine. We will go through the reference today. scope_creepTalk 08:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS piece is not routine coverage... It is feature and it is secondary... there is no way around that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. Consensus on this is clear. The litigation comes from the operations of the company, they are just reporting it as they have a duty of care to report cout proceedings. There is no journalistic intellectual process on the go to find this information out. It is not news. Court proceedings gets reported to the CBS news desk automatically and they report from there. it. It is not WP:SECONDARY coverage. Its is absolutely WP:PRIMARY coverage and its been known in the newspaper industry from 100 years that its primary. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no journalistic duty of care to report court proceedings. The article in question is feature coverage which goes well beyond court proceedings, it clearly meets the standard laid out at NCORP which you apparently need to go read. This is secondary coverage, the outlet (CBS is not a newspaper) is not involved in the story and is clearly providing general analysis such as "Like distributors at other MLMs such as Herbalife (HLF) Amway, Mary Kay, and LuLaRoe, Market America distributors earn money both from selling products and attracting new members to their sales team. MLM critics have argued for years that very few distributors earn a significant profit. People looking for part-time work, such as stay-at-home parents, however, are drawn to the industry. According to data from the Direct Selling Association, a trade group, distributors added $35 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is and you clearly don't understand how these things work. There is no general analysis in the reference. Its all from the company.
The only part which is not general analysis is "According to data from the Direct Selling Association, a trade group, distributors added $35 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015." which is not from the company but from a trade group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input on WP:CORP vs. prior AfD discussions please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis was alluded to but not present in the discussion yet. Right now though, there is no support for Deletion aside from the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets examine the references for this dreadful article. I'll look at the first two blocks. The article has had at least three tranches of updates since 2018.
Ref 1 [3] Profile in Inc. A paid for profile and is WP:PRIMARY, failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 [4] Company balance sheet non-rs.
Ref 3 [5] It has been stated above that is a secondary source, but some of it been copied from either company website and the court documents. I think the majority is WP':PRIMARY and is not indepedent of the company. It is reporting the lawsuit combined with details of the company structure.
Ref 4 [6] It is an interview with JR Ridinger. It is not independent.
Ref 5 [7] Single sentence. Not significant.
Ref 6 [8] Its a profile of the company, describing its function. Its not significant.
Ref 7 [9] TINA sent them a letter. Its not significant either.
Ref 8 [10] An affiliate for the Bloomberg story above in Ref 4.
Ref 9 [11] Based on a press-release.
Ref 10 [12] Registring for an IPO.
Ref 11 [13] Based on a press-release.
Ref 12 [14] A routine annoucement of shop.com being bought. A press-release.
Ref 13 [15]] It is an scheduled event listing. Non-rs.
Ref 14 [16] It is a press-release.
Ref 15 Unable to see this.
Ref 16 [17] It is the shop front. Non-rs.
Ref 17 [18] Press-release site.

Right lets look at these in turn

Ref 1 Failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 Non-RS
Ref 3 Reporting on the company litigation + some content from company site. I think it is WP:PRIMARY. It is a not true WP:SECONDARY source.
Ref 4 Not independent.
Ref 5 Single sentence. Not significant. Failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 6 Profiile. Not significant. Failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 Not specific to the company. Can't be used to prove notability.
Ref 8 Not independent. Failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 9 Non-RS
Ref 10 WP:PRIMARY and not a reference.
Ref 11 Non-RS
Ref 12 Non-RS
Ref 13 Non-RS
Ref 14 Non-RS
Ref 15 Unable to see it.
Ref 16 Non-RS
Ref 17 Non-RS

Of the 17 references, 8 are Non-rs. 4 fails WP:SIRS, 2 are WP:PRIMARY and 1 I can't see. It is a very poor listing of junk refs for this junk company that doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. There is simply no coverage to support an article that size. Its all scrap. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles of the company aren't significant coverage? Also note that you were asked for analysis but there is none, you've asserted that sources are primary/fail SIRS but your idea of "fails SIRS" doesn't appear to match the community's, which I believe has been an issue before... No? You've never had anyone mention to you that your ideas about notability don't match our community standards? Also note that notability is based on articles that exist, not just those in the article and you appear to have limited your non-analysis to the sources in the article. For example the WSJ article[19] counts towards notability even though it isn't currently being used in the article, same with the Independent[20]. You've neglected to analyze any of the coverage around JR Ridinger's 2022 death[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] or coverage of Loren Ridinger (its their personal company, nobody separates coverage of Market America from coverage of the Ridingers) [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Only you apparently. This isn't the JR Ridinger article. That is a different subject. Does it say that at that top of the article dude? His death has nothing to do with the company. We are discussing Market America only. The differentiation between the man and the company has been in effect since about 2007-2008. That is consensus based notability criteria for people. You seem to be confusing the two, which shows your inexperience. More so I'm starting to think you have a WP:COI in this somehow. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is currently the article for both founders, both redirect here. Again the sources don't separate coverage of the Ridingers and Market America because there isn't any. "The differentiation between the man and the company has been in effect since about 2007-2008." what bizarre sexism, are women just irrelevant in this analysis? You can make a post at the COI noticeboard, what you can not do is use a COI accusation as an unsupported personal attack here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that everyone is fustrated by a discussion that isn't going anywhere but can the both of you dial things back a little before a sysop decides to get involved? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't participate in a deletion discussion without casting aspersions towards those editors you disagree with, then please stop participating in these discussions. No matter how experienced an editor is, no editor's contribution is worth it if they contribute to creating a toxic atmosphere and discourage other editors from participating in these discussions. Many editors have stopped coming to AFDs because they consider it a hostile environment, let's not perpetuate that perception. Focus on the article, not each other. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happens when a finished discussion gets relisted after its already run its course, there isn't anything left to say but the same people saying more has been requested so it dissolves into mud slinging. What did you expect to happen Liz? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You object strongly to Market America covering the Ridingers but would you object to a page on the Ridingers covering Market America? At the end of the day we have a notable topic here, how we choose to organize it is a secondary question. Would you object to making the main page JR and Loren Ridinger instead of Market America? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. CaribDigita (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage. Really. That is bit of wide of the mark is it not. scope_creepTalk 06:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much use an analysis of the sources is at this point in the discussion, but on general principles I'd like to comment on routineness and primaryness. Routine coverage is, of course, considered trivial under our notability criteria, but CORP does not go into detail about what is and is not considered routine, merely giving a list of examples that the CBS article is not covered under. We can draw on WP:ILLCON, which states that Sources that primarily discuss purely such [(alleged) illegal] conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. but this is not too satisfying if the underlying principle is unclear. Instead, we can take a look at WP:ROUTINE's ... crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. In a following sentence, it names (and links to) an essay somewhat controversial at AfD (at least by my memory, I could be wrong), WP:MILL. So what makes an event run-of-the-mill? How can we tell that from the coverage? The question is whether the coverage of the various investigations, indictments, lawsuits and whatever is beyond what one might expect of a typical lawsuit or investigation of an entity (incidentally, for BIO articles, this is often the more correct criterion, better than the frequently misapplied 1E). The answer, is depth. Depth, analysis, the quality of the content for use as a source on Wikipedia, of course, is tied closely to the second question. WP:PRIMARY, again, seems quite rarely applied at AfD, but despite the difficulty, it is important to draw the distinction between fact, opinion and analysis. Neither "like other MLMs, this MLM does MLM things" nor "MLM critics criticise MLMs" are analysis of the subject of the article. The paragraph about startup fees, that part could be independent, but it wouldn't be secondary, because it wouldn't be analysis. There's no context there, it's just the facts. It should be needless to say, but the direct quotes are also not analysis. There is no significant coverage in the CBS article by our notability criteria.
I'm also not entirely clear how it's sexist to expect coverage to be of the subject of the article, but we can also analyse the coverage with regards to the biographical notability of the founders. The WSJ article again falls under criminal events (WP:CRIME / WP:NCRIME). It is honestly not clear what could be considered significant coverage in that, perhaps the changes in plan which made things complicated? I don't really see how much of the specifics of "Ridinger and Ridinger found out that it's really complicated to donate yachts" would fit in a biographical article, but I'm willing to call that a maybe. The rest is a hard no though. The Independent article is entirely primary, the coverage of the death? Almost entirely quotes from reactions. While it's of course very sad that someone has died and the event is certainly significant to them, the coverage cannot be used for establishing biographical notability as it is entirely primary, routine, trivial. Here are some quotes because I got COVID? Trivial, primary, and non-independent besides. Miami Herald is an interview, I cannot access the Law360 article so it is not evaluated, but I expect to give it at best a maybe like the WSJ. Ignoring the next two interviews, the boat article is at best coverage of the boat. No, the biographical coverage is not up to standard either.
For whatever it's worth, delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: I believe you've confusing coverage of a civil case with coverage of a criminal case, ILLCON and NCRIME only applies to criminal cases. I'm also not sure how you get from "In 1999, Market America bought a steel-hulled Feadship yacht and named it Utopia II." to "the boat article is at best coverage of the boat." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for the distinction if the basis is routineness, if you're going to assert that lawsuits are not covered I'd like to see prior AfDs with that interpretation please, as it's certainly not in the text of any of those guidelines either; and quite frankly if you're going to call a namecheck coverage I don't know what to say to that. But I was actually referring to the other boat article, the one you linked, you know, the one after the interviews. I thought I'd go through things in order. As an aside, I'm not really impressed by the number of sources you linked either, when they say "quantity has a quality all its own", I'm fairly sure that was not intended to apply to trivial coverage at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why the article I was referring to is even a question since I'm fairly sure I went through the WSJ earlier, but for reference I gave the WSJ article a maybe. That's on biographical sigcov, on the company is a no. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:12, 1 October 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 Power Pack#Members. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Power[edit]

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

The article is about a character from a comic book series. None of this article is cited to secondary sources. Searching the internet, I only found passing mentions (ex. Saying this character is in Power Pack, but not anything further than that). I do not believe there is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge targets suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again I'd actually suggest a redirect to Power Pack#Members, which has a fictional biography not a mile off the appropriate level of detail for the team. Would also suggest the same for Jack Power (Marvel Comics). Julie Power has some very sketchy reception, including a remarkably shitty list reference from Scary Mommy, but might just clear even if the article itself is overdetailed fandumb. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:07, 26 September 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 Altaic languages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Altaic language[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE approach to a fairly widely rejected theory. Only has a couple of adherents who are publishing a proto-language reconstruction of a language family that itself isn't believed to have enough demonstrate to evidence. Clearly WP:PROFRINGE, lost of weasel-y language and the topic itself fails WP:GNG. Most of the citations are actually about Altaic (itself fairly widely rejected, but which clearly meets notability guidelines), not Proto-Altaic. Warrenmck (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenmck (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This is in response to a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Dené–Caucasian language; I've also started an RfD for Proto-Nostratic, but I'll leave Proto-Eurasiatic alone since it's a mere redirect and the Eurasiatic hypothesis seems new enough to not be so thoroughly discredited as Nostratic. Also left alone, or merge-worthy, is Proto-Human language, which is a noteworthy theory in its own right. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the linguistics wikiproject, I’ve proposed rolling some of the more… spicy takes on macrofamily proposals into one article. It’s definitely a controversial idea, but just a thought if you want to take a look over there. Warrenmck (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Altaic languages. I strongly agree that having an article about Proto-Altaic language or merging its content into Altaic languages is in-universe WP:PROFRINGE. The term "Proto-Altaic", however, is a legitimate search topic. –Austronesier (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I worry that the redirect would encourage people to expand pro-fringe content into the main article. “Well it redirects there and says nothing about it!” considering there’s no evidence the macrofamilies in question exist, is it really worth having a fringier subset of fringe redirect? Warrenmck (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect – reasonable search term, so it shouldn't be deleted. I have no opinion on whether the topic is notable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit Wikipedia should NOT be limited to "mainstream" views only, or even try to define what the "mainstream" view is. The WP:FRINGE guideline says only that a Wikipedia article on a fringe theory should not make it appear more accepted than it really is. The topic is notable enough, and readers who see the term somewhere and look it up deserve to know all there is to know about it. At most, the article should be edited to say how little support the theory has among academic linguists. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS @John M Wolfson: @Warrenmck: By the way, most of those "Proto-XXX" theories, including Greenberg's, are not "fringe" in the same sense that Flat Earth and Creationism are "fringe". They do NOT contradict any solid linguistic theory. It is just that the evidence and/or arguments that they rely upon are not considered reliable enough by "mainstream" linguists. Thus they are more like the theory that Dark Matter consist of exotic particles, or that there was contact between Polynesia and South America, etc. "Highly speculative" and "unconvincing" maybe, but not "unscientific" or "contrary to mainstream". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment for those who aren't aware, this is the author of the article in question (thanks for coming!)
It is fringe, these proto-language articles are predicated on accepting hypotheticals which not only lack any meaningful evidence but which directly counter our best understanding of linguistic families. Beyond that, the technique used to derive these proto-families is basically exclusively mass comparison, which is a fringe technique by all accounts. "Unscientific" and "contrary to mainstream" are exactly the correct descriptors considering the use of a rejected fringe technique and creative liberties with the current understanding of top-level phylum in linguistics. Warrenmck (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 23 September 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 per WP:SNOW (could also be WP:SK3). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Ascher[edit]

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

Has been an orphan for six years. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Simply being an orphan for a long time is not a valid rationale for deletion. The subject appears to pass WP:NPROF#5 as a named chair (actually, multiple named chairs). Curbon7 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, the subject of the article meets notability criteria for professors per Curbon7's note above. It seems they have two named chairs. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the above, this guy is so known in his field that his textbook is named after him (Scott and Ascher on Trusts). -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. The nominator, who has been editing for less than two months, might like to study WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being an orphan is no grounds for deletion. As others have pointed out the multiple named chairs meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fleshed out the article some. Still needs work. A Google search turned up wide coverage, including in law reviews. Meets notability criteria for professors as cited above and passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:56, 24 September 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sendy Santamaria[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it is WP:TOOSOON. She had a children's book published this year "Yenebi's Drive to School" by Chronicle Books, but I don't see a way to bring this up to notable, yet. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. No indication has been provided that there is enough source material available to sustain a full article on this subject. The arguments to keep are more saying that it should be notable, and very thin on demonstrating that it in fact is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Philosophy and History[edit]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Philosophy and History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"cited" only to the unitersity's website. search turns up nothing. ltbdl (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and check navbox for others - This is nothing more than a 2008 German language copy and paste of the German-language online dept list of the university. No individual faculty members listed. Even if this article listed faculty members, they surely would have changed in the last 15 years. The University of Heidelberg navbox does show other Wikipedia articles for the depts etc., but they also look to have no, or little, sourcing. Maybe they all need to be tagged. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify. Your "search" is terrible if it turns up nothing. Heidelberg has had a philosophy faculty for centuries (Hegel taught there!) And it was for a long time the most important faculty in that university.Jahaza (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @jahaza: then what sources did you find? ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, and:
    Heidelberg has had a philosophy faculty for centuries (Hegel taught there!)
    "it's old!" is not a valid argument.
    And it was for a long time the most important faculty in that university.
    citation needed. ltbdl (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When something is centuries old, it should suggest to you that your search method is bad if you literally turn up no sources as you allege. Jahaza (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    do you have sources? ltbdl (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @jahaza: Again, can you provide those sources? In English? This is a copy and paste from a German-language institution. Where are the sources? Are they in English, so that any viewer will know it is a source, and what the source actually says? — Maile (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, probably ok to drop most of the subheadings and convert to a stub. Perusing a few pages of Google Books results, I'm quite satisfied this school meets WP:GNG. These sources I've listed are in English, but I do want to note for purposes of the ongoing discussion, we do not require sources to be in English. Here's some of what I've found so far:
    1. Some SIGCOV of the history of the school (several of the search results within this book are for this specific school, but not all)[40]
    2. Covers a bit of history and seemingly some courses taught by Max Weber, with some possible pointers to other sources[41]
    3. Some history[42]
    4. A bit of history Hegel's work in the specific school[43]
—siroχo 05:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Siroxo, I appreciate your effort but you're clutching at straws. No one denies Kant was there, but his notability does not equate to notability for the school. A footnote about Max Weber, a comment on the number of Jewish professors, and a paragraph in a journal from 1838 do not add up to significant discussion of the faculty/department to the point where we can consider them notable in their own right. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing why this department would be notable. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are we going to go through and review all of the faculties then? I perused a few more and they are mostly all of the same quality, with a couple exceptions like Heidelberg University Faculty of Law. This case will set precedent for the rest so they should all be considered in my opinion to avoid discrepancies. - Indefensible (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't generally like this categorical approach to deletion, especially for centuries-old topics related to regions without English as a primary language. It takes time to find the sources, but they quite clearly exist for this one. If I found what I did above in English in less than 30 minutes, which I do think demonstrates GNG, a German speaker more familiar with the topic could find much more with a little more time. —siroχo 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I lean towards disagreeing with you in this case, the article quality is pretty bad and the references feel like a stretch as Drmies wrote. Contrary to what you argued, there is also no dedicated German article on the native language wiki, so I am more inclined to follow their lead and clear them for most of the faculties here in English as well. - Indefensible (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or redirect per above. I would recommend the same for most of the other faculties there for clean up, I guess they can be nominated in turn. - Indefensible (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clear notability is shown. Yes the article needs expansion but this cannot happen if the article is deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the article needs expansion but this cannot happen if the article is deleted
    you can. just recreate the article; you can ask for a copy of the deleted article from the deleting admin, if you so wish. ltbdl (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ltbdl, that's not true, articles recreated after an AFD are tagged CSD G4 if substantially identical to the deleted article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what i meant was you can retrieve a copy and improve it in user or draftspace. ltbdl (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Notability is not inherited and the case for notability above seems to rest on previous faculties, not this current subject. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly (not defunct departments consolidated into the current subject) and indepth (not just a mention). If only they had a football club for one season, then they would easily pass.  // Timothy :: talk  20:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the keep argument is more by hope and wishes than by evidence of sources, except one user whose sources have been refuted. Would like a chance to better consider sources before we close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 23 September 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. Complex/Rational 20:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of encryption of power[edit]

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

Already tagged with an essay-like and notability issue, I'm pretty sure the accounts of creator RsR110097 and contributor Rassnau952 are both Ricardo Sanin-Restrepo himself, who is mentioned 31 times in the article total and 15 times used as a reference. This looks like a shameless promotion ("TEP has been developed mainly by the Colombian legal and political philosopher Ricardo Sanín-Restrepo"). Even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT'ing without Sanin-Restrepo's input is a better idea. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text reads as near gibberish to me, perhaps a LLM (like ChatGPT) has generated it? Regardless, the prose is close to unintelligible to me and is not encyclopedic. If there is an actual underlying topic of value to Wikipedia, it is not evident to me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just got done cleaning up a bunch of the COI editor's pushing of this concept at numerous high profile articles, including People and Constitution. I'm not able to find sources that cover this topic where the authors don't either include Sanin-Restrepo directly or relate to him in some way. There certainly are not enough independent sources to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: editor is indef-blocked. No one has time for this. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of the concept of decentralization of power using encryption before, but never this Sanin-Restrepo person. I suspect if this topic could have a wikipedia article written on it at some point in the future it might very well have a different title and likely would not include any of this current article's content. - car chasm (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV --Shrike (talk) 15:14, 25 September 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 Fencing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's épée. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May Moustafa[edit]

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

I don't think there's enough here to establish notability and I haven't succeeded in finding anything from other sources. Hmee2 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 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! 17:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaras[edit]

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

I can't find evidence for a village called Amaras in Azerbaijan today. It is not registered in Google Maps nor in OpenStreetMap, it appears on Bing Maps (first time I use that thing) but it appears twice in conflicting locations. The village does not have an Armenian Wikipedia page (it's in the Nagorno-Karabakh region), and on Azerbaijani Wikipedia the article deals with a former village. Per Google Scholar [44] I can find no evidence that a place called Amaras currently exists, again it appears that Amaras was a former village. This article's only source gives a 404 error.

I propose to delete this per WP:TNT, the notability of this former village has not been confirmed and everything would need to be rewritten in any case. Confusion has already led to this map in Commons [45] for example to show "Amaras" as a village recaptured by Azerbaijan even though it appears it does not exist today. If it is notable, someone will eventually write an article for it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:44, 23 September 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! 17:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obij Aget[edit]

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

Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Only sources are promo pieces for subject opening an ice cream shop. BEFORE showed nothing that meets GNG or BIO. BLP requires high quality sources.  // Timothy :: talk  17:38, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Nobel[edit]

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

The subject appears to be notable only for founding an obscure organisation (NSHSS); a mystery, because the article is labelled as "Sweden-related", this is a "national" organisation that seems to be untied to any clear nation, except perhaps the USA. The organisation's website protests (I think too much) that it is "not a scam", but see sample complaint: https://www.bbb.org/us/ga/brookhaven/profile/educational-consultant/the-national-society-of-high-school-scholars-0443-12000946/complaints

Also very strange to show a photo with Kento Masuda, an obscure musician, added by an editor with a (deliberately?) difficult name in Georgian script, who has been blocked for paid-for editing. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main source for the article is a paid family obituary whose verifiability is somewhat tarnished by claims like "Claes, a native of Sweden, was born in Copenhagen". In any case it is not independent. Neither is the "World Peace One" page. I suspect the WKI page is not, either, but it's hard to tell because I see no mention of him on it. The NYT article namechecks him but has no depth of coverage. That leaves only family connections and a press release about an apparently non-notable award. None of these convey any WP:NBIO notability. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but founding an organization that claims to be not a scam is not the same thing as being an academic, and there is no hint of a pass of WP:NPROF notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and Sweden. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Half•alive on Tour[edit]

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

Unreferenced and not notable. Particleshow22 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Great Outdoors[edit]

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

This subject lacks coverage beyond passing mentions, thus failing WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found but passing mentions, no SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of it. And that's a bad sign. Even for a bottom-of-the-barrel diginet, this is obscurity incarnate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. This network was so low-profile, even for a low-profile network, that I'm not sure redirecting to Get After It Media (one of the network's partners) would be worthwhile despite a mention there. (That its other partner, a cutlery manufacturer that is probably the "Frost" part of the network, does not appear to warrant an article is another potential strike, but in and of itself means nothing.) National distribution (albeit on very minor stations) does not always lead to significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:49, 24 September 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coal in New Zealand[edit]

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

This article is two sentences of numbers and a list of see also links. What I think could be added is more appropriate for Mining in New Zealand#Coal. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I started this article as a stub for consistency with other article about Coal by country while researching the Huntly rail bridge bombing that occurred during the 1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute, when I realised the existing section about coal in the article about Mining in New Zealand barely scraped the surface of the topic, and a whole separate article is needed. There is so much more to be told, but most of the information remains undiscovered in archives like Papers Past and other off-line sources. Prior to the 1960's, much of the New Zealand economy depended on coal, with it being an important feed-stock for many industries, from the dairy industry to coastal shipping and railway transport. Many towns in New Zealand used coal to produce town gas for cooking and heating in both the home and industry. Contemporaneous 1951 miners strikes in support of the waterfront dispute quickly resulted in emergency rationing of coal and gas, due to supply disruptions, according to contemporary newspaper reports, and happened months before the bombing, which is contrary to at least one modern account. Mining coal is less than half the story of Coal in New Zealand. The article is intended as an overview of the subject, from its geological formation in the New Zealand geological context, to its industrial and domestic uses for cooking and heating, as well as its use as a transport fuel. These aspects of coal are far outside the scope of an article about mining. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps draftify until the stub can be fleshed out a bit more? It that sort of expansion is not on the table, then redirect to Mining in New Zealand § Coal ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tcr25: I have added a new section about the geology of New Zealand coals, to flesh it out a bit more. This has about doubled the article's size. So I wonder if you would like to reconsider you draftify proposal. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per WP:HEY. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Cameron Dewe that it’s a notable topic, and that the scope is broader than mining. If it’s not acceptable in its current form, I suggest that it should be draftified. Schwede66 18:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded this a bit, and think that this is a viable start class article Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm satisfied with the expanded article, there's abundant sourcing for this broad topic. Meets WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scope is much broader than Mining in New Zealand#Coal, and meets WP:GNG. Expansions made are a great start. Paora (talk) 10:28, 28 September 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! 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aigerim Alimbozova[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP with no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best sources found were Vecher, which mentions her twice in a match report, Kaz Football, which is just a squad listing, and Sports Arena, another squad list. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FlyArystan destinations[edit]

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

This was deleted as part of the bundle Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations with a very detailed rationale from User:FOARP linking to the the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, which clearly confirms that we should not be hosting these lists on Wikipedia anywhere. This article was swiftly recreated following the previous AfD and I am not seeing how this new version addresses any of the concerns raised by FOARP.

There is no evidence that the destinations that FlyArystan fly to are covered significantly in reliable sources independent of the company. I would politely ask people to read the above RfC and AfD to understand the context of this nomination before !voting. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Obviously I’ve been brought here by the ping in the nom, however this is a straight-forward recreation of a recently-deleted article that does not address ANY of the issues with this kind of article. To re-iterate:
1) these are straightforward service-listings for a company and violate WP:NOT.
2) they are sourced entirely to the website of the company that provides these services. There is no way this passes WP:GNG let alone the stricter requirements of WP:CORP.
3) these listings can only be sourced ultimately to the service-provider themselves. No secondary, independent, and reliable source (a requirement that excludes industry press and blogs) can be found for this information.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a repository for airline company data or aviation enthusiast lists. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above, no reason to maintain lists of destinations airlines service; I don't think any RS covers this independently. AryKun (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that the article now has sources from Simple Flying, which seems to announce every new route from every commercial airline. I'm still not convinced that this topic warrants an article but the new sources could be used to expand FlyArystan, which has very little info. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spiderone - Simple Flying is industry press and does not meet the requirements of WP:SIRS. As you say, it also covers every new route announced by a commercial airline and so is insufficiently discriminating. The information relayed in their articles comes entirely from the airline and is WP:CRYSTAL as it always about future plans that may not happen. Indeed in the case of Urumqi the planned launch of the service is covered by Simple Flying but our article states that this service has already been terminated. Finally, it's very obvious WP:PROMO flap-copy. Here's a snippet so people can get a feel for it:
    "FlyArystan, Central Asia's largest LCC, is dedicated to providing budget-friendly travel opportunities in the region. The new route to China is a testament to the airline's expansion policy, catering to the demand for low-fare travel. Offering a base fare of 18,000 tenge, passengers can customize their travel experience based on their preferences. FlyArystan encourages travelers to seize this opportunity and immerse themselves in the vibrant atmosphere of Urumqi.
    That's not a quote from the airline or anything, that's the in-article text written by the staff of Simple Flying. For anyone who knows what's going on in Xinjiang it's also kind of grotesque but that's by-the-by.
    As such there is no useful content to merge here. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Recreation of previously deleted list per deletion discussion. Has shown very little improvement, if not a carbon copy of the previously deleted article. Coastie43 (talk) 01:38, 26 September 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. Procedural Keep, nomination by sockpuppet, no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leander Rising[edit]

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

See the AFD for Leander Kills, the successor of this band. Only notable for reality show participation. Pottyantós WC (talk) 09:05, 23 September 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 islands of the Philippines#Romblon. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agdapdap Islet[edit]

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

Article has been challenged for references since 2014. No reliable non-wiki mirror hits in Google, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, retarget to List_of_islands_of_the_Philippines#Romblon --Lenticel (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as mentioned above. Island probably too small and relatively unremarkable to have its own article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:13, 26 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Latvia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this small group meets WP:GNG, even if the article repeatedly tells us that "it is worth noting...". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 23 September 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. and rename List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters[edit]

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

This is an odball, considering the contents of Category:Lists of Star Trek characters. Many Star Trek shows have lists of characters (on top of List of Star Trek characters, as well as the longer alphabetical List of Star Trek characters (A–F)). Only two ST shows have 'recurring' lists - DS9 (here) and List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise. I am unsure whether we want to rename this by removing 'recurring', or just redirect it to the List of ST characters? I'll note that many entries in Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters are unconsistently redirected either here or the alphabetical "all-ST" lists. Some cleanup is clearly needed here, and I think we can first discuss what to do with those two oddball "recurring" lists? My preferred suggestion would be to keep them, and rename them by removing recurring, but I am open to other ideas? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think both could be BOLDly renamed, perhaps adding either a series of {{main article}} tags or more likely a single {{main list}} tag under a section header, to point at the main characters or the cast lists which point at them. —siroχo 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 19 characters have their own articles. If you want to prune the list of others, that can be done through normal editing practices. It shuold be renamed to line up with other articles of this type. Dream Focus 12:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Mercurial Vapor[edit]

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. After removing a bunch of unreliable sources there are only four left and the four that are left I'm still iffy about. I'm only on the fence with them because another editor found an editorial staff member on LinkedIn. The sources left mostly detail product releases and that is it. They do not provide in depth coverage of the product in and of itself. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. Pure garbage. TarnishedPathtalk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need a Redirect to a target ARTICLE not a target Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article - redirected - now restored. GiantSnowman 07:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD, but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:, can you sign your vote please. TarnishedPathtalk 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Not needed, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 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, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Hungry Stay Foolish[edit]

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

Book apparently published by the place it's promoting, thus, WP:SELFPUB. Fails WP:BK. Indic-lang original from let's just say someone who publishes a lot. Book title to get Ghits: no connection with Stewart Brand or Steve Jobs, the latter being who most know the quote from. Domain for one ref has its own WP:WPSPAM linkreport. CSD reverted. Anyone feeling up to it might wanna review the linked articles too (which are the only mainspace links to article).

Seems like the title maybe should redir to Whole Earth Catalog but not sure. Can be discussed. --47.155.41.104 (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK.1 / GNG. Review from RS[47]. Another in-depth review in what appears to be a trade publication, [48]. There is substantial other coverage that I haven't checked out after finding 2 reviews. I also see multiple reliable sources (The Hindu, The Statesman) considering it a bestseller, so it may meet NBOOK that way as well. —siroχo 06:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reviews that I can find, after several searches on GScholar, Google, and TWL. I'm not sure what reviews Siroxo's linked above (I'm paywall blocked from even seeing the title on ProQuest), but I haven't been able to find anything. All reviews I've found are from online blogs, and any newspaper discussion of the book is as a minor note while discussing its author. Bestseller lists are not a criterion in NBOOK, so real argument for keeping. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With your account age and edit count, use The Wikipedia Library to access ProQuest (and other sources). —siroχo 00:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, reading WP:NBOOK will explain how bestseller lists contribute to notability. See Note 4 for details —siroχo 01:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, I did use TWL, and did not find any reviews. AryKun (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the top of the ProQuest website say "Access Provided by Wikipedia"? If not you may need to log in to ProQuest again through TWL (For ProQuest, you have to click the "Access Collection" button every week or two, it seems). Otherwise, here's full citations of the two reviews if it helps.
    —siroχo 06:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep the DNA review seems a bit short, but just about scrapes past GNG with these two. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two reviews are not sufficient. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 03:34, 25 September 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 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Educational Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG as there is no qualifying RS covering this organization per a WP:BEFORE (also noting that there's been a notability tag on the article for 11 years). Much of the content is self-published or copied from the organization's better-known magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Longhornsg (talk) 05:42, 23 September 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 rampage killers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rampage killers (workplace violence in the military)[edit]

List of rampage killers (workplace violence in the military) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into List of rampage killers. Fails WP:NLIST, as there is not RS coverage of the items on the list being covered as a group, and this is just a WP:OR list of items. Longhornsg (talk) 05:40, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hossein Bagherifard[edit]

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

Mohammad Hossein Bagherifard

Probable autobiography of Iranian filmmaker. The subject made a film, Uncle Saeed, which may or may not be notable, but currently exists as Draft:Uncle Saeed. The subject also states that they have made two more films, without verification. The article has been reference-bombed with links to web pages that have passing mentions of the film, and sometimes the filmmaker.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 http://www.entekhab.ir/ Web site times out ? No No ?
2 cinemaorg.ir A report by the Iranian film censorship agency,stating that Uncle Saeed was approved Yes No - Entries of the film and the filmmaker in a list Yes No
3 hashure.com A blurb about the film No. The blurb comes from the filmmaker. No, passing mention Probably No
4 rottentomatoes.com A short description of Uncle Saeed. Says that there are no reviews. Yes No Yes Yes
5 filmfreeway.com A blurb about the film. The same blurb as is used in 3. No No, passing mention Probably No
6 fftgawards.com A list of films including Uncle Saeed Probably No, passing mention of film, and not of filmmaker Probably No
7 edukino.pl A list of films qualifying for a Polish festival including Uncle Saeed Yes No, passing mention Probably No
8 festival-meihodo.com A list of films in another festival Yes No, passing mention Probably No
9 halamostanad.ir A list of Iranian films entered in a Japanese film festival Yes No, passing mention of film, and of filmmaker Probably No
10 mehrnews.com Mention of an award received by Uncle Saeed. No information as to prestigiousness of award Yes No, another passing mention Probably No
11 accoladecompetition.org Mention of an award received by Uncle Saeed. No information as to prestigiousness of award Yes No, another passing mention Probably No
12 teater.ir Another list of awards with no information as to prestigiousness of award. Yes No, another passing mention Probably No
13 njfilmawards.com Mention of their award to Uncle Saeed in January 2023. No information as to prestige of award. Yes No, another passing mention Probably No

None of the references are significant. Some of them refer to awards received by the film, which apparently is entered in festivals of unknown prestige and sometimes have received awards of unknown prestige, and we know that the film industry has many vanity awards. The film may be notable, but the drafts have been declined, and further work may be required to establish notability. Even if the film were notable, the references are all passing mentions, with no significant coverage. If the film draft is accepted, a redirect from the filmmaker to the film may be in order, but we don't make redirects from article space to draft space, and the BLP needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Sources in English on Iranian filmmakers can be difficult to find, and searching for this one is slightly complicated by the use of alternative spellings of his surname in Persian: "Bagherifard" and "Bagheri Fard". I've added the latter to the lead section, as the article creator User:Mhbf used that spelling when uploading his photo to FAwiki, though not in the title for some reason. One reference calls him "Mohammad Hossein Bagheri".[49] Unfortunately I can find even less on him in Persian than in English. Maybe a native Persian speaker can comment: I know just three words in Persian, and can only search using a translation tool.
As nominator R. McC. notes above, nearly all of these awards and festival selections are pretty obscure, and at least one, the "New Jersey Film Awards" is an obvious pay-to play, "awarded" monthly: [50].
The "Accolade Global Film Competition" similarly awards "monthly certificates of merit". Mehr News Agency does a brief report on it in one reference, but they seem to have mistaken a monthly certificate for an actual award.
The FFTG Awards are notable, and the Meihodo International Youth Visual Media Festival also seems notable from RS press coverage, but as nominator says, a passing mention of having a film shown or of being a finalist for an award doesn't bring coverage up to WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I added more reliable references, including the IMDB site Mhbf (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, unfortunately IMDb is not a reliable source: please see WP:IMDB for the reasons why. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. This is a confirmed WP:AUTOB as the author has previously stated they are Mohammad Hossein Bagherifarad. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete per the source table, I can't find anything extensive about the individual. Source table doesn't show anything extra we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 23 September 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! 04:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Burgess[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 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! 04:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin August Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 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! 04:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deris Benavides[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 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! 04:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Anderson (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 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! 04:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jarbi Álvarez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianese[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted, and a respective entry in Wiktionary created instead.

  • It gives almost nothing of substance. It could be replaced by a dictionary definition.
  • Most of the issues raised in 2006 still hold: the article has not been significantly improved to address the issues in the last 15 years.
  • Where the article does make definite assertions, they are not backed by citations and so constitute OR. And they are dubious: for example, "This form of jargon is not fundamentally based in Bible texts but in tradition" is just an assertion: why must it be exclusive: couldn't it be both based on Biblical texts and tradition, mutually re-inforcing within a culture?


If it is too much to delete the article, remove all but the first paragraph and the External LinksRick Jelliffe (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Lack of Substance: Jelliffe believes the article lacks substance and suggests it could be replaced by a dictionary definition.
  2. Long-standing Issues: The article's unresolved issues from 2006 are mentioned, but it's important to consider improving the article rather than immediate deletion.
  3. Original Research: Jelliffe points out concerns about original research within the article.
  4. Dubious Assertions: The validity of certain assertions in the article, such as the exclusive basis of Christianese in tradition or biblical texts, is questioned.

In response, while there may be valid concerns about the Wikipedia article on "Christianese," outright deletion should be considered carefully. It may be more constructive to work on improving the article by addressing the issues raised, providing proper citations, and ensuring that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. Deleting the article should be a last resort if these efforts prove unsuccessful.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very old article but it had no inline citations until it got nominated for deletion. It did, however, have references - the paragraph on The Simpsons is referenced to The Gospel According to the Simpsons, a reliable source. It's just that the formatting that seems quaint to us today. Anyway, there is indeed substance here, and "the article has not been significantly improved to address the issues in the last 15 years" is not a valid deletion argument. Note also that GBooks suggest several books on the very subject: Christianese 101: A Lexicon for New Believers (published by Wipf and Stock) and Elements of Christian Thought: A Basic Course in Christianese (Fortress Press). Clearly notable. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY "Wikipedia articles are not: ... Definitions, Dictionary entries., or Usage, slang, or idiom guides." — Maile (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per nom. Once the unsourced content is removed, what remains is a dictionary definition. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per nom. Seemingly no uptake in academic articles (excepting some theses), so I doubt we can support a broad concept article about this topic. I am wondering if there's a good redirect target on-wiki that discusses a similar concept, where a sentence with the definition can be inserted. Maybe some sub-page of Christian culture or Glossary of Christianity, although I poked around and couldn't find any good targets. Suriname0 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think an article that has been around this long needs more discussion. I also don't think User:TheChunky's concerns have been addressed. Is deletion or a cross-wiki redirect the best solution to what might be a content problem? Even the nominator makes the suggestion that part of this article might be preserved. But the important thing is that I don't currently see a consensus for any specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm struggling to find the point in Chunky's comment, to be honest. Neither he nor Anselm have explained how the article could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, which is a separate question from notability (per WP:N, a subject is presumed to merit an article if (a) it meets GNG, and (b) is not excluded under WP:NOT). Those arguing to keep should cite sources which provide secondary analysis of the concept, such as could be used to write an encyclopedia article (see Academese for an example of the kind of sources I think would be required). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306, hope you are doing well. My point was simply to work on improving the article by addressing the issues raised, providing proper citations, and ensuring that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. As this article survived an AfD earlier here, however, there was no consensus in the result, but we can observe the comments there too, which makes this subject important for having a Wikipedia article as there is criticism on this term, which obviously is not a dicdef. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this meets WP:GNG and, more importantly to this discussion, as a concept, can readily be covered beyond a dicdef:
  • The most obvious way in which this article could be expanded beyond a dicdef is in discussion of the problems of "Christianese" I've found in multiple sources. Multiple authors believe this phenomenon makes it harder for Christian individuals to communicate to individuals who don't use the same terminology. Other authors discuss religious/sectarian issues that arise with the phenomenon. Yet others discuss psychological issues related to faith that arise from it.
  • Another way in which it could be expanded is in explanations of "Christianese" conveys various ideas of Christianity, which I've also seen in sources. I think there also is some of this in the article that would need to be verified. I think this is adjacent to some of the discussion in the article (only a bit of which is verified as of now), but we certainly could expand on it.
I'm not well-equipped to evaluate reliability of some of these religion-oriented sources for such a concept, so I'm not going to add them in myself, but I'm finding a plethora of sources beyond what's in the article. Here's a few:
  1. A semi-humorous piece by a military hospital chaplain that describes the subject, describes examples, describes problems therein. [51]
  2. An in depth discussion from Canadian Mennonite [52]
  3. This book [53] published by Crown Publishing Group has a solid "primer" of some of the problems caused by the phenomenon.
  4. This book [54] published by 1517 Media has some discussion of the idea.
  5. This book [55] published by MennoMedia discusses a variety of problems with the phenomenon.
—siroχo 08:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the book sources listed above that enable the article to be more than a dictionary type definition and show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even without the superb sources that Siroxo provides and the expansion options they offer, the article as it stands passes GNG and already extends beyond dictdef. Deletion does not improve the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:59, 26 September 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 Nike football boots. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Tiempo[edit]

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG with 4 out of 5 references being unreliable. Footy-Boots.com, where 2 citations are from does not list any editorial staff or policies and takes unpaid contributions from members of the public. The Instep, where one of the reference is from, is a blog. Unisportstore.com, where one of the reference is from lists the author as "anonymous" and is also a site which sells the products its reviewing which is a slight conflict of interest. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. Pure garbage. TarnishedPathtalk 02:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please select an existing target article to Redirect to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now an article again. Another user had boldly redirected. That redirect has been reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freight Farms[edit]

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

Routine coverage, not sufficient to establish notability. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Four of the references are from the company's own webpage and one is from Kickstarter. The only real source is BI. Uhooep (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some coverage from an NPR story [56]. With the BI article, I think we're ok. Needs a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources listed above by Dream Focus (which need to be re-added to the article) are sufficient to pass the WP:SIGCOV test. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Show[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 23 September 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 Multiplicity (subculture). Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity (psychology)[edit]

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

Original redirecter @ජපස: says: "WP:RGW alternate page to the psychologically accepted definition. This argument is not accepted as a real one. If it is, please identify better sources than the ones that were included and said basically nothing about "multiplicity" as being differentiated from dissociative identities"

Note: I as proposer take no stance on this yet, but am bringing to AfD to get perspective on keep, redirect, or delete. lizthegrey (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Multiplicity (subculture), rather than to Dissociative identity disorder. The original proposal to remove the article is correct that we shouldn't have two articles about the same psychological phenomenon, but I think people are better served by a direction to (subculture) than to DID. subculture already links to DID, and subculture and psychology aspects are not sufficiently distinct to deserve their own articles. lizthegrey (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Multiplicity (subculture): There is a sizeable overlap between the community and the psychological state of being plural. Since both of these articles are very short, it would make sense to discuss both aspects in the same place. One could debate as to which title the resulting article should be under, but that is another debate for another day. Similarly, any attempt to merge the resulting article into dissociative identity disorder would probably require another discussion. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unclear to me whether the parenthetical "(psychology)" is appropriately disambiguated to the subculture article. There don't seem to be a lot of sources which say that psychology recognizes "multiplicity" as a group identifier -- which isn't surprising as psychology is pretty individualistic when it comes right down to it. As far as I can tell, DID remains the main organizing principle for this concept within the context of psychology. An alternative would be to Delete the redirect entirely as it is not clear to me that this is a normal search term. jps (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Multiplicity (subculture) per Lizthegrey. Some1 (talk) 18:00, 23 September 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Channel mergers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Street[edit]

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

Subject seemingly does not meet WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary references present either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE check. Open to redirecting this but not sure what makes sense as a target. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 23 September 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 Nike football boots. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Total 90[edit]

Nike Total 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG with 5 out of 6 references being unreliable. Soccer Cleats, where one citation is from is a blog. Footy-Boots.com, where 4 citations are from does not list any editorial staff or policies and takes unpaid contributions from members of the public. The final reference literally details the history of the brand and equipment through Nike adverts. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. Pure garbage. TarnishedPathtalk 02:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting redirecting an article to another redirect, GiantSnowman? I haven't encountered that option before. Or are you going to write this Currently nonexistent article?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article - redirected - now restored. GiantSnowman 07:51, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Christian[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Virgin Island newspaper source used is fine, but that's all I can find about this individual. Nothing else we can use to source the article, not meeting BLP.Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It just called for one space on the log page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nice fix. Could not figure it out. - Indefensible (talk) 03:21, 23 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAYV (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unneeded because only one entry listed in the dab page, when the Chinese-based group is the primary. RMXY (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this nomination is not being properly listed on the AFD log page because of some formatting conflict with the nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Renata_Christian_(2nd_nomination) before it. (Oh, the bot already caught that.) Fixed by Liz. - Indefensible (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An earlier version of the disambiguation page also included a television station, WAVY-TV, which might be searched as WAYV. I recommend restoring the television station to the list and keeping the disambiguation page. Delete. The television station wasn't the same call sign. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what the last sentence means. WAYV redirects to one of the meanings, [57] was the edit to remove the TV station from the list, yet the hatnotes still do mention the TV station. It's either appropriate in hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page, or it's not, we can't have it both ways :) --Joy (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The hatnote fails WP:NAMB due to the "(FM)" disambiguation, and I have removed it. WAYV in caps currently redirects to the radio station, but the station should be moved to just WAYV. Optional to add a hatnote afterward to the boy band. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if WAYV redirects to one page, and WAVY to another, and these things are presumably pronounced the same, why shouldn't the hatnotes exist? Why is it implausible that readers might confuse these? --Joy (talk) 08:03, 24 September 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_23&oldid=1177998115"