Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 29

< January 28 January 30 >

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 redirect to List of Hustle episodes#ep1. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Con is On (Hustle)

The Con is On (Hustle) (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 references so no evidence of notability for the episode Indagate (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the extremely generic title does not make searching easy, but I could find no reviews of this specific episode, meaning that it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion, unfortunately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant independent coverage. The interview in the Manchester Evening News is not enough. BruceThomson (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Hustle episodes#ep1, althrough deleting will be a misstep but the redirect to an episode will be the best option as per AtD. Redirect is enough for any WP:NEPISODE failures. Not all TV series has a episode list to their TV programme.
    2600:1700:9BF3:220:9585:F64B:E1C3:B891 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 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 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piri (singer)

Piri (singer) (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)

Does not appear to demonstrate individual notability. The group piri & tommy is notable and receives lots of coverage, but piri herself does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. The band seems to have "broken up" ~1wk ago, but again, there appears to be no evidence of independent notability. AviationFreak💬 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to find much sourcing for her alone, the redirect seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been expanding this article since it was listed here and I am satisfied that I have demonstrated notability. It is now more than twice the size it was when it was nominated - hell, it's almost twice as big as piri & tommy, which would mean it would need to be split per WP:ARTICLESIZE. AviationFreak, Narutolovehinata5, Oaktree b - please reconsider your votes.--Launchballer 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that there has been a lot of effort put into the page, but unfortunately I still don't see anything that talks about piri as an individual rather than in association with her former group. There may be future sources that show her notability as a standalone act, but at the moment I just don't think the coverage is there. AviationFreak💬 21:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was edit conflicted adding a bit to my comment; I've inserted it in italics.--Launchballer 21:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already voted, but I've just noticed that she passes WP:MUSICBIO#C7.--Launchballer 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of changes to the article since AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Seems notable for more than one event, noting her group music career, single music career and only fans work. Seems to be more then enough coverage to make a useful encyclopaedia article. It's not the strongest claim of notability, hence the "weak" but it's enough CT55555(talk) 03:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:HEY as there is now enough reliably sourced coverage of her solo career to justify a standalone article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to piri & tommy. I'm sure this will lead to even less chance of consensus, but I'm just not seeing evidence of the singer's independent notability outside of the group. Her official releases have been through the group, and outside of them she is a social media influencer just like a billion other people. WP:MUSICBIO#C7 was mentioned above, but her supposed status as a leader of a local scene is via an indirect reference in an article about someone else (Venbee) and who that person gigs with. (Off-topic, for those musicians who think they're making a point with all-lowercase names and song titles, e.e. cummings was doing that a hundred years before it was cool.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as there is a lot of coverage of her solo career to justify a standalone article in my view-Widget-policyq‬229 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 4 February 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 Angus & Robertson. czar 16:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornstalk Publishing

Cornstalk Publishing (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)

Publishing company that fails NCORP and has no additional sources on the internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, fails WP:NPOV, specifially WP:CORP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CORP, article (that is barely a stub) hasn't been touched since its creation ~8 years ago. A quick google search showed no avenues for article's development. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable company from 100 years ago that no longer exists, so if RSs exist they presumably should be findable now. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It was not a 'company' for a start - it was an imprint, and a substantial player in australian literature and publishing history - [1] as an imprint of the publisher Angus and Robertson. Not made easy by the fact that Austlit identifies the 1990s imprint, and Trove has substantial listing of publications that relate to 1924-1929. The least would be to salt/merge/into history of Angus and Robertson, at the very least. However I would say delete is furphy, it is a stand alone item in oz literary/publishing history JarrahTree 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - re-reading the Angus and Robertson article, it is a very poor article, and I would see no benefit in combining anything in this article with it. The significance of the imprint, and its value to Australian literature (as seen by additional edits since the commencement of this afd far outweighs any misreading of the imprint and its context) JarrahTree 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Angus and Robertson The topic is of some significance, however, I don't think a standalone article can be justified through WP:CORP. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this imprint/company has an interesting trajectory, being also responsible I believe for being the first imprint to publish the Anne of Green Gables series in Australia. It warrants a separate article and more work on its history and ethos. Sterry2607 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Angus and Robertson LibStar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Angus and Robertson. The imprint seems to have published notable authors, but most of the sources cited mention the company only incidentally and lack the significant coverage required for a stand-alone article. Meticulo (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Angus and Robertson appears to be the most sensible option seeing as none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. NYC Guru (talk) 07:56, 5 February 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. On a pure nose count this could look to be no consensus. However, the assertion that the source material is inadequately in depth toward the subject was not refuted, nor do any "Keep" arguments demonstrate a close analysis of the available source material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Artun

Deniz Artun (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. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing anything in the article that establishes notability. The sources include 2 couple generic "about the author" entries that would exist for just about any book published. The other 3 sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's more information about her in the news, major exhibitions she has participated in and major exhibitions she has curated, most notably I-You-They: A Century of Artist Women. Not going to agree with any delete given vague rationale that does not address available sources.--Gazozlu (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gazozlu. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I reviewed every source cited in the article and not a one of them that qualifies as an WP:Independent, reliable source discuses the subject of this article in a detailed, descriptive fashion as required by WP:GNG/WP:NOTABILITY: almost all of them mention the subject once, maybe twice, and even then only in completely incidental statements mentioning her as the curator for a facility or exhibit that is the actual focus of the statement and source generally. Further, a number of the sources are simply not WP:RS to begin with. This clearly doesn't come anywhere near the detailed, significant coverage required under GNG, and (meaning no offense), I'd strongly encourage those !voting Keep above to take a second and more detailed look at the actual content of the sources here. SnowRise let's rap 15:47, 29 January 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! 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost reads like a resume or LinkedIn post, I'm not showing anything substantial, as explained above. Curating an exhibit alone isn't enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:PROMOTION. Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 1 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Left Of Centre

Slightly Left Of Centre (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)

Zero reliable sources with significant coverage; Huffpost article is from a "contributor," the same "contributor" that penned several of the other press releases for non-notable music sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in Last.fm, blogs, nothing we can use for GNG. No charted singles, no critical reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The writer of the HuffPost article may did press releases, but it still counts as reliable as they have written other articles that were real. There are some blogs that can be deleted which are EQ Music Blog and TunedLoud. Besides that, these magazine sites though don't have much history, they are very usable for this page. Chermie222 Talk 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Chermie222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment Chermie222 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Mekalos, the creator of this article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article survives, the title should be moved so "of" is capitalized correctly. Meanwhile, I attempted a vote on the band's notability but will declare myself Undecided. They have some coverage in Australian music media; some of the sources appear reliable but the coverage is rather thin and introductory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not meet WP:BAND. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's analysis of sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 5 February 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 Procedural keep. No rationale provided for deletion. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My Ass Tour

Kiss My Ass 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)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22#Kiss My Ass Tour. Pinging people from RfD: A7V2, HorrorLover555, Thryduulf, Aspects. Clyde!Franklin! 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Clyde!Franklin! 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep given that no one has actually put forward any arguments for deletion of the content at the RfD. I read the "and send to AfD" comments as suggestions should someone actually want the content deleted. If I were the one to close the RfD, I would have left a comment to that effect which could have saved an unnecessary AfD filing. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Tavix. If you don't think there should be an article about this tour you need to explain why you believe that, ideally with evidence to support your opinions, so that other people can agree or disagree with you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be sources available for this tour (as per the RFD) so I think it is notable. --Bedivere (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the original editor who redirected the article two and a half years ago as being tagged for using primary sources for twelve years and failing WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Since new, reliable third-party sources have been found, it now passes WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more sources regarding the tour now than there used to be as what Aspects has said. I have no objections if anyone else says otherwise regarding the article. HorrorLover555 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Youth Policy Association

Canadian Youth Policy Association (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 about an organization, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizations. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead the inclusion bar requires the organization to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on its sourceability, but four of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the two references that come from real media are both problematic for other reasons: one is a piece of sponsored content (i.e. not real journalism, but embedded advertising) which fails to contain the words "Canadian Youth Policy Association" at all, instead covering something called the "Canadian Council for Youth Prosperity" without ever offering a lick of clarification as to whether that and this are the same thing or not, and the other one is just covering the concept of youth policy without mentioning either the "Canadian Youth Policy Association" or the "Canadian Council for Youth Prosperity" even once.
There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this organization from actually having to be the subject of real coverage about it in third-party media sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Searched ProQuest, where I would have expected to find coverage for this organization, and Wikipedia Library (EBSCOHost), but did not find anything for "Canadian Youth Policy Association". Agree with nominator's analysis of the sources currently cited in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 5 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addu High School

Addu High School (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:NSCHOOL, no other sources found online, only source in current article is the school website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:54, 29 January 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 Southern Rocks first-class cricketers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanyaradzwa Munyaradzi

Tanyaradzwa Munyaradzi (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)

Non-notable Zimbabwean cricketer who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCRIC. A search only found database listings and passing mentions in match reports, as can be seen here, for example. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:09, 29 January 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vidyanand

Swami Vidyanand (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-notable yoga master and author, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Refs are primary and unreliable, notability doesn't establish in RS. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fman

Fman (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)

Page creator is a WP:single purpose account and the other non-trivial contributor may be too. The page has faced deletion before (speedy, PROD, PROD) but the SPAC contested the PROD and the rest was dismissed on procedure.
Does not demonstrate its notability: all sources are from 2017 (WP:NTEMP) and so the coverage isn't significant (WP:NSUSTAINED); its 4 reviews don't mention any significance to the field (WP:NSOFTWARE) and are from sites that review software all the time (WP:MILL is linked in NSOFT); ProductHunt listings, HackerNews comments and misc software sites are not WP:RS, even if two of them get WP articles.
The fact that it is proprietary payware plus the shoddy claim to notability makes me think of an WP:ADMASQ, that only lasted this long because nobody bothered enough to bring it here. — Mignof (talk | contribs) 19:00, 29 January 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 Kingdom Hearts characters (tentatively). As there is consensus that a merge is necessary but no particular target was specified, if a better target exists, a merge there is fine as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yozora

Yozora (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, its reception relies mostly on listicles/content farm type articles and doesn't prove standalone notability. This character clearly belongs in a list of characters rather than having his own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this really a theme notability or length. Almost every source from Reception's first paragraphs are articles about critics trying to understand who the character in the form features analysis since his most outstanding feature is his role as well as whether or not he is meant to be a reference to Final Fantasy XV. The second paragraph touches another aspect involves his character where most of the focus involves how ridiculously hard is to defeat him. You want more sources or tone it down? The third paragraph is the smallest but it also primarily centers around Yozora's voice. I never used a review article of the game or dlc so I'm confused how it fails notability despite what I commented. When writing this I went for the same style Tifa Lockhart had to avoid losing its GA status. Guess I'll have to abort the DYK nomination too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tifa Lockhart is a massively popular main character from one of the most popular video games of all time, and has been aggregating reliable source coverage for the last 25 years. This is, as the article prose you wrote itself states, a minor character from a game from a couple years ago. They are worlds apart in coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 03:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Regardless of any future importance for the character, there really isn't enough here to justify a standalone article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ProtoDrake. There isn't enough here to prove standalone notability, but it might be suitable for coverage elsewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Couldn't find anything else that might be important.Tintor2 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ProtoDrake.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:24, 5 February 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou (franchise)

Caillou (franchise) (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 "franchise" article of unclear necessity. This consists of a single sentence stating that this is a franchise that exists, the end, and its only "reference" was an invalid WP:CIRCULAR link to the Wikipedia article about the series which constitutes the most notable iteration of the franchise -- but references must be external to Wikipedia, so that wasn't a legitimate reference and had to be stripped.
This would be fine if the article actually contained any real substance and sourcing, but there's absolutely nothing here that isn't already contained in the existing article about Caillou as it is, making this just a content fork with no pressing need to have a standalone article in this form separately from the content we already have in other places. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed since the main article on the Caillou show is good enough as is and does not seem big enough to have a separate one for the whole series. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify This is clearly not ready for mainspace but there is some Caillou media and merch outside of the TV series so I think a franchise article could a decent idea.★Trekker (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero notability. No point in draftifying a single sentence.Onel5969 TT me 14:52, 5 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Micah

Joshua Micah (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)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC; zero reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found, no charted singles. Non-notable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until subject becomes notable. Serratra (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how any of these sources would be unreliable. These sites don't appear to be blogs and have lots of history behind them. Most of them tell the truth also. Besides, there was a charted song this artist did. Chermie222 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)— Chermie222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Chermie222 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Mekalos, the creator of this article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:59, 30 January 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parikrama (disambiguation)

Parikrama (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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is an evident primary topic based on pageviews. Usually this can be handled through WP:PROD just fine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:33, 1 February 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) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Legend

Bryan Legend (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)

Borderline speedyable as promotional; zero reliable source. The Entrepeneur article is tagged as an opinion piece by a "contributor." OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not promotional. Not opinion. "Reliable source" = Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodberger/2022/11/03/shaping-education-for-young-entrepreneurs-on-a-case-by-case-basis/?sh=2bdb5835d3cc Bryzie.b (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the Forbes source is an WP:INTERVIEW. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:FORBESCON, which explicitly disqualifies Forbes "contributor" articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you see WP:FORBES Wikipedia states it as a reliable source Panthermail (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORBES is only for articles written by their staff, WP:FORBESCON applies here. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the subject of the article has posted about its creation on their personal Twitter page and the thread indicates that the article may have been self—created or paid for by the subject. NJZombie (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be tagged for cleanup as Bryan Legend is a pretty significant figure in the crypto space and deserves the Wikipedia page. Im with @Panthermail on this one. Yeah it does seem a bit biased but I think the POV can be corrected easily. Also it doesn't classify for speedy deletion as the criteria is not exactly matched.@Kj cheetham 2405:201:200F:89FA:17A:B992:24CA:6436 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that was clearly not left by me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, he's covered in news.com.au, but he lost all his money [2]. The rest of the sources are useless, the Forbes is a contributor piece, so not RS. Might have a shot if we can find a few more sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete One reliable source, nothing found for his racing career either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He didnt race he sponsored a racing team 2405:201:200F:CD11:7D27:762D:1FA9:5B71 (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not notable then either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with the minimal reliable sources that are included, I still can't find anything that makes the subject notable enough for an article here. NJZombie (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I attempted to do something about the blatant promo by making it a stub, but even then I don't think it's salvageable. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. Pretty Important person in the DeFi space, though some better sources are required! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:200F:CD11:7D27:762D:1FA9:5B71 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — 2405:201:200F:CD11:7D27:762D:1FA9:5B71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
what is Defi exactly? We need sourcing to prove why he's "important" in this space. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeFi is Decentralized finance. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of vanity spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i would have speedied this if not listed here, already speedied a sandboed draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a little bit of independant coverage, but most of it is WP:PROMO. WP:TNT might be needed if a stub was to be kept. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.gripeo.com/bryan-legend/ 2A02:8084:9841:8080:984E:BAA:67FD:8451 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    tagged as spam by my spam filter, so I'm going to say it's not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional article. Particularly the section on hobbies. - GA Melbourne (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete looks like a promotional puff piece of unremarkable achievements. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The page creator has requested the deletion of the page. I've declined because of the large number of other edits, but FYI. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually the second time they've requested deletion, including page blanking CiphriusKane (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Making me think there might be COI there too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing more than a promotional/vanity article and there's not really much of a claim to notability either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree, LibStar, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Cabrils (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing new to add to the other delete votes above. Falls well short of meeting WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, as nom was thinking, probably should have been speedied.Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 5 February 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 10:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pard (disambiguation)

Pard (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)

No disambiguation page needed, Pard (legendary creature) redirects to Pard as well. Onlk (talk) 15:35, 29 January 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 Kanak Chapa. Discarding the "keep" vote that violates WP:NOT. Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa

List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa (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:NLIST, lacks WP:SIGCOV, WP:VERIFY absent. See WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:44, 29 January 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 Runa Laila. Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 02:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila

List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila (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:NLIST, lacks WP:SIGCOV, WP:VERIFY absent. See WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:43, 29 January 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! 06:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars named after animals

List of wars named after animals (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)

Was prodded by me in April 2020 due to failing WP:LISTN and WP:OR, but deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), who is now banned from deletion-related activities. I'm still confident that this fails LISTN and OR because there are zero relevant search results. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, History, Military, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information list and a valid navigational list for those who wish to find wars with the name of an animal in their name. Dream Focus 15:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A valid list article on an unusual topic. We could not have this as a category as SHAREDNAME categories are forbidden, so that a list is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an indiscriminate list of Wikipedia articles with "war" and the name of an animal in the title. Many of the list entries aren't actually wars. The Fish Wars were a series of civil disobedience protests. Pig War (1906–1908) was a trade dispute. The Dog Tax War had shots fired, but was bloodless. Pig War (1859) had a military confrontation, but was bloodless. Saukrieg was a bloodless feud. Sheep wars and Oyster War were violent disputes between Americans over access to natural resources. Turbot War, Cod Wars and Lobster War were 20th century disputes over fishing rights that involved military confrontations but which were mostly bloodless. Crow War and Fox Wars were named after Native American tribes named after animals. Emu War was a military operation aimed at exterminating animals. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a WP:LISTN failure, since no sources have covered this grouping, and also serves no navigational purpose since the inclusion criteria has no relevance to the actual content of the articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. This makes verification easy. That said animals are, in fact, animals, is also easy to verify; we are not talking about unicorns or mermaids. Plantdrew has a valid point that not all entries were actual "wars", but that could easily be mitigated by altering the opening sentence: This is a list of wars or other conflicts named after animals. That "war" is often used as hyperbole for a conflict that is (mostly) bloodless is a very common occurrence. The inclusion of all entries is based on the titles English Wikipedia has given said articles, which is again easily verifiable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is not meant to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as each article/list needs to be judged on its own merits, but I think it's worth comparing it to the List of wars named for their duration. That has no sources either, but also passes per WP:CSC, and concurs with the arguments given by Dream Focus and Peterkingiron in favour of keeping this list. It was nominated in 2015, resulting in Keep and Rename, because it was considered valid and useful for navigational purposes. Because we are in a different but similar situation here, I think this is an important precedent to take into account. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that those are actual wars, which is not the case with this list. Lamona (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Devonian Wombat- there is no coherence to the entries in this list, nor do any sources group them together. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't looked at as many linked articles as Plantdrew but I also note that of the ones I looked at most were not wars in the conventional meaning of that, but various types of conflicts that for some reason were given a name with "war" in it, including so-called trade wars. Also, many of them are not animals (e.g. lobsters and fish). So this list makes no sense from a logic point of view, and probably neither from an informational one. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:18, 29 January 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) Garuda3 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lanlana Tararudee

Lanlana Tararudee (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)

Was sent to draft for improvement, and returned shortly after. It has been expanded slightly, but only to include another database entry sort. Currently does not meet WP:GNG, and there is not enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes, just simple routine sports coverage. Her one ITF win is not one of the tournaments on the list ([[3]]) which qualifies for meeting WP:NTENNIS. Onel5969 TT me 11:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. Onel5969 TT me 11:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – She has just received a wildcard for the WTA tournament, 2023 Thailand Open (tennis), granted as a wildcard in her home country. Maybe some significant coverage can come out of that if she performs well but I'm not seeing a lot right now. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's[4] an in-depth profile by the Lawn Tennis Association of Thailand, which probably doesn't count as an independent source as it was writing in the context of her membership in the national team. Lots of Thai-language sports headlines covering her event performances, some of which profile her career achievements, though none seem to be particularly in-depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now meets WP:NTENNIS, and also now meets GNG thanks to the sources above and new coverage generated from her WTA main draw appearance such as [5] [6] [7]. Iffy★Chat -- 16:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NTENNIS { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets WP:TENNIS, article subject has appeared in WTA main draw. Leonstojka (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it barely meets WP:TENNIS with a wild card entry. High ranks, titles and significant coverage are not enough, but anyways, rules are rules. Timothytyy (talk) 13:37, 1 February 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) 16:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi district

Kandi district (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 district by this name has been proposed in Murshidabad district. The article lacks any reference to prove otherwise. See the references 2, 3 on the article and [8], which adequately mention the districts to be created. "..two new districts of Baharampur and Jangipur will be created out of Murshidabad district [which comes under Malda division ]" This article was also created by a now blocked sockpuppet. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that the sources referenced in article do not mention a Kandi district. I can't verify the article in Bengali, however it would seem from your description that Kandi may, at most, be an alternative name for Jangipur. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:25, 4 February 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! 08:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pachter

Michael Pachter (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)

Seems to mostly be a promotional piece. I am unsure what the notability claim here actually is, beyond him merely being a financial analyst. The sources don't seem to cover him or his work in detail. They mostly interview him on the basis that he analyses finance. A lot of the sources about his notability in the gaming space seems to come from low quality sources like Nintendo News and GamePolitics. The Forbes article about him is a contributor one and not a staff one. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think Nintendo News or GamePolitics should really be used in a BLP, but beyond that I likewise don't see the claim to notability. He's said a bunch of sometimes out-there stuff people have repotted on, but they're not reporting on him, and he's not the central focus of any of the content in the referenced article. Doesn't meet GNG as a result. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 09:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project networks

Project networks (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)

Patent nonsense. My speedy was declined, but I think it pretty clearly meets the definition: Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. Jfire (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete created by an SPA, completely unintelligible, largely unsourced and apparently either translated from an undisclosed Russian source or just OR. Mccapra (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely concur on patent nonsense. PianoDan (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect that this is a thing, but this article reads like an essay on the subject rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm also not sure whether all of the content is relevant to the presumed topic. I do find scholarly works that seem to cover this subject, like this and this. There are more. So I am open to the idea that the topic might be encyclopedic. However, this article is not. I would consider a TNT rewrite effort. Lamona (talk) 23:33, 3 February 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! 06:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Mallick

AfDs for this article:
Suman Kumar Mallick (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)

Non-notable politician, created by sockfarm. Article deleted, also from name Suman Kumar Malick and Suman Kumar Mallick (Indian Politician). The creator account also having same name as of the article. You can refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suman Kumar Mallick/Archive --- Misterrrrr (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck, blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suman Kumar Mallick‎. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck, blocked for violating WP:SOCK. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suman Kumar Mallick‎. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dipsita Dhar

AfDs for this article:
Dipsita Dhar (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)

She is not an elected politician. She served as All India Joint Secretary of Students' Federation of India which is not a notable post. There is no significant coverage in the sources listed in the article. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the now-blocked sock that nominated this article in the previous AfD had a similar perspective on election being necessary for WP:NPOL and concern about the notability of her role in the Students Federation of India, but she can be notable per WP:BASIC, which includes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Sources identified in the previous AfD include Indian Express in 2021 with secondary context of her education, her campaign, and role in SFI, and The News Minute in 2021 with a focus on the context of her campaign, as well as reference to the sources in the article, which include coverage of her activism in 2017 in India Today and The News Minute, and in 2020 in TNN. The Deccan Herald and The Hindu cover her work as the National Secretary of SFI in 2021, and The Hindu covers her speech at a convention in 2019. In 2021, during her campaign, she was described as "the New Face of Left Politics in Bengal" by The Wire. She is also discussed in the 2022 India Today article How young leaders are spawning a generational shift in CPI(M), and there is brief coverage of her role in a protest in 2022 in The Hindu. The WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time supports her notability and has allowed a substantial article to be developed, and to continue to be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am convinced by the argument made by Beccaynr CT55555(talk) 02:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG/BASIC per sources highlighted by Beccaynr. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I have withdrawn my nomination. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:46, 30 January 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! 06:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Sharma (politician)

Dheeraj Sharma (politician) (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:NPOL. He is serving as National President of Nationalist Congress Party. He is not elected to the post. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:18, 29 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ahmad

Fahad Ahmad (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)

He served as General Secretary of a non notable organization. Many of the listed news sources are mainly about his organization not about him. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:15, 29 January 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.

Talk:3D Masters

The result was procedural close as article has been deleted. (non-admin closure) Launchballer 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:3D Masters (edit | [[Talk:Talk:3D Masters|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 and talk page are blantant promotion and not encyclopedic in nature. See WP:PROMO for more information. Jmjosh90 05:10, 29 January 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! 04:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Viets-VanLear

Ethan Viets-VanLear (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)

Sources are of low-quality. WP:BEFORE search doesn't come up with much better. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Illinois. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears that someone thought this guy deserved an article because his sister has one at Tasha (musician). WP:NOTINHERITED is an obvious problem, and this guy's work for activist groups and occasional poetry gigs are overwhelmingly average and non-notable. The sources in this article are about the groups for which he is a member and events in which he appeared, but he has nothing to demonstrate his own notability. I was once invited to speak at an outdoor club's monthly meeting but that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source are primary about the group he belongs and there is no enough in-debt source to make him pass.Epcc12345 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 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 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yamashita

Michael Yamashita (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)

Wikipedia articles, especially those in the category of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, require in-depth coverage of the subject to be able to be written with a WP:NPOV. I believe that Yamashita does not fit the bill and falls afoul of WP:NJOURNALIST and the WP:GNG. It may be WP:TOOSOON; it may not, but his NFT does nothing to increase his notability. Therefore, I nominate this article for deletion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Psiĥedelisto @David Gerard
I spent the day adding Mike's ISBN #s for publications, adding links to various interviews, articles, papers, etc.
Mike is not as notable in the West as in Asia. I can't make the call personally on if he qualifies for a Wikipedia page or not, but I've added about 80% of the needed information. I still am waiting for clarification from the studio on specific dates and evidence for awards and accolades.
I do not plan to include any NFT references or information at this time due to the perceived controversial nature of them and the reception the section received here. At a later time, if the profile is kept, I may submit a draft of those activities for review, but there is no plan to re-add that section at this time. Note - I am not being paid for this work but I consider it journalism and contributing to the public good. This effort has also made me interested in Wikipedia as a historical preservation tool and I hope to contribute to additional articles. Psiĥedelisto commented to me in a message that Michael's prior profile, added 10+ years ago, hadn't been updated and wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia standards, so I believe my initial unqualified and non-complaint edits were a blessing in disguise and will lead to a more wholesome and up-to-date bio for Michael.
Drew Marshall Cryptohydrate (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Psiĥedelisto @David Gerard
I appreciate your attention to detail and upholding Wikipedia standards.
Based on the time Yamashita spent in Asia on National Geographic Assignments (34 full stories for the magazine, 40 years with the magazine), there is potential for his photography and documentary work to be considered notable.
Evidence provided below.
His work appears to meet the criteria for Criteria for Notable Photographers on the WP:HOPh WP:HPHOTOG pages. I did notice the AfD request appears on their page so it should be on their radar.
3 Examples of meeting this criteria:
- His solo exhibitions, including the Wentworth Golf Club in London in 2022, the Wesleyan University in 2017, Jimmy Carter library in 2017, Pisa in 2018, (bullet 1 - 'whose work has appeared in at least one solo exhibition that has been noted in more than a merely local press'
- His contribution to the Guam stamp, (bullet 5 - 'who is significant historically (e.g. the first to photograph this or that)'
- His 1988 photography work at the US Marine Academy is searchable on the Library of Congress Authorities website: 'who is included in at least one of the following authoritative online resources.' (Bullet 8, Sub-bullet 3)
His work also appears to meet the Criteria to be included in WP:FILM:
- His documentary The Ghost Fleet won Best Historical Documentary at the 2006 New York International Film Festival
As far as Wikipedia pages he already appears on as a notable person where his profile was linked:
- Asian American from California
- Notable Asian Americans under the News/Media/Journalism section.
- Weslayan University People
- Chester Township, New Jersey
- Fine Arts section of People from Montclair New Jersey
- Notable Alumni from Montclair Kimberly Academy
I've also located several examples of mainstream media coverage and usage of his photographs, books and documentaries, including this New York Times article from 2005, this Tibet article in The Guardian, which is considered a newspaper of record in the UK, coverage of his Zheng He National Geographic project's photographs and documentary in this PBS article, usage of his photographs by the Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian,
I'm going to slow my role significantly in regards to this specific page heeding @David Gerard's COI concerns, and I defer to him on based on his perception of the information I've provided, activity and edits. I do urge that the page fall under Wikipedia: Cleanup and believe the links I provided in this talk page would be a good starting point for anyone from WP:HOPh to make the necessary updates to save the page using WP:NPOV standards. I hope my amateur editing skills and initial ignorance with regards to Wikipedia standards do not impact the decision. Yamashita's page had not been updated adequately with proper citations prior to my involvement, and included a brief NFT section with outdated and unimportant information that has since been removed. The article didn't meet current standards for Wikipedia, but I believe it could, and meet and even exceed the minimum standards for notability.
Open to your continued guidance and feedback,
Drew Cryptohydrate (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates tagging you in case any of these citation are useful. Cryptohydrate (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz! Cryptohydrate (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable photographer.. I worked on it to make it more encyclopedic. Removed some promotional language and CV items. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two full articles about him: Professional photographer mag and Asam News. The latter is partly in the form of an interview, but has a fair amount of additional text. This is what is in addition to the sources on the page. He has published many books of photography - I don't think we can give him NAUTH for that, but it should could toward notability. I dont' know about the reputation of his publishers but it doesn't appear that he self-publishes. Lamona (talk) 23:53, 3 February 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. There seems to be a consensus here to Keep this article despite the varying opinions on the quality of the sources used in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeta Singh

Vineeta Singh (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)

A non notable businesswoman with the only claim for notability being a judge in Shark Tank India which is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The subject has no significant coverage and the article contains PR sources. Some sources are just routine announcement of her participation in Shark Tank while some other have only brief mention about her. Thesixserra (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

Keep is my vote, as could be expected for I am the initiator of the article. I believe the article qualifies for WP:NBIO as the subject is:

  • Widely covered in WP:RS with explicit mentioning of the the subject's name and her individual thoughts and deeds. These sources include:
    • India's most important general printed news papers: Times of India and The Hindu.
    • Basically every business-related digital/printed Indian news outlet. (Challenge: try to find one that does not speak about the subject!)
    • A full chapter dedicated to the subject by the authors of the book: The IITM Nexus.
  • As mentioned in Thesixserra's deletion request: the subject is a judge on the Shark Tank TV show. In countries that enjoy a better representation on Wikipedia (i.e. USA, Australia), all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia. In my opinion, WP:BIAS is the reason that this is different for the equivalent Indian subject. However, notability is by no means limited to the Shark Tank appearance. Other topics covered include (all of which reported by WP:Secondary sources explicitly naming the subject):
  • Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities.
  • Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact (none of these is related to her Shark Tank appearance).
  • Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.
  • Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
  • Her views on entrepreunership and marketing (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
  • Her father being a famous scientist.
  • Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (admittedly, this was related to her Shark Tank role).

On a personal note: I spent one day initiating the article and now again two hours for the rebuttal of this deletion request. I would like to leave it with this and subsequent casting of my vote, wherever required. If other editors arrive and there is consensus to delete - so be it. If there are founded concerns of WP:SOAP, I recommend WP:BOLD to improve the article. PR was certainly not my intention and should be removed, if present. However, as I am not aware, which specific statement is meant, I advise Thesixserra to edit the concerning sequence(s).Tomeasy T C 11:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

I will respond to all of your arguments individually.

  • 1.all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia- Being a judge in Shark Tank do not guarantee anyone a wikipedia article and you are simply talking about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
  • 2.Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities- This does not count towards notability. The subject need significant coverage to meet WP:GNG which is clearly missing here.
  • 3. Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact- All these three are some non notable awards given by some private organisations. The awards itself dont even have a wikipedia article. I'm wondering why you are saying that the award has a nation wide impact.
  • 4. Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.- Not even a proper reason to keep an article. Her name is mentioned in brief with some routine coverage. Again fails to meet WP:GNG
  • 5. Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women- This is somewhat a good argument. But again the citations are weak PR puff pieces with some mentions on her and do not give significant coverage.
  • 6. Her father being a famous scientist.- Notability is not inherited as per WP:NOTINHERITED
  • 7. Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire- There are like hundreds of participants in this show. Do they all have a Wikipedia article. Thesixserra (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either this article or an (as yet unwritten) article about her company Sugar (company), which I've just added to Sugar (disambiguation). Not sure there's enough notability for both person and firm. PamD 15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems notable based on the coverage for being on shark tank (I'm thinking WP:NCREATIVE) plus general notability criteria due to the articles talking about her business and media work. One was behind a paywall and one relied on interviews, so I say "weak" because of that, but seems like the type of person that an encyclopaedia user would want to know more about, so I think the encyclopedia is better to have this article than to not have it. CT55555(talk) 19:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, she seems to have an interesting career. The sources are not the best, but it's enough to build a bio for the wiki. Also, we're trying to combat gender bias/ethnic bias on Wiki. She's a female judge on a non-Western television program, I can't see how deleting this helps combat either type of bias. Weak GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She'll have some recognition from the media appearance, which helps in a small way make her more notable. She was also basically told she wasn't important without her husband's involvement, that's also a form of gender discrimination. We can talk about it here, perhaps help combat it in some small fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst she seems like a fairly minor celebrity to me, it appears that there is enough media coverage of her life to meet the GNG. For example this in GQIndia. Taken with various other interviews in national media and a few more in-depth pieces about her history, in my judgment it is enough. JMWt (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That GQIndia source states it is a "repost from Humans of Bombay" (wikilink added) and includes churnalism, e.g. "Speaking to HT, she said..." and "According to a recent CNBC report, Vineeta Singh was paid...", includes a quote from her, and the entire article (excluding the Instagram posts) is 6 grafs, with a brief overview of her career and biographical information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find significant coverage on a regular basis in reliable sources. The sources are well reputed Indian NewsPapers & business magazines. The coverage is specifically talking about Vineeta's journey quite extensively. Burfi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure whether it is relevant to say this here. But this is Burfi's first edit in 12 years since making their last edit in 2011. [21]. They have only made 99 edits so far. Thesixserra (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you know yourself the answer to your "wondering"! Of course, it is not relevant. Relevant is only the content, facts & constructive edits that make better articles. Personal opinions, mistrust etc. are just derailing the discussion.
If the opposition to this article is really heading to arguments of this sort, I want to propose to rather conclude this discussion with a clear decision and move on. Instead of wasting each other's time. Burfi (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Source Assessment Table is provided below. RPSkokie (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the 6th and 7th sources are being cited to support the statement that she has appeared on the cover of those titles, how are they "unjustifiable"? PamD 06:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose what we need is something pertinent, like a text that is easy to read and which discusses Vineeta Singh. I am not aware of the extent to which visual identification can function as a justifiable reference. My understanding is that way, and it's possible that you could improve upon it by adding something that would make it more meaningful. RPSkokie (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the link, and also linked to the profile of her which was included in coverage of the Forbes W-Power list. PamD 10:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Smile Foundation link doesn't mention Singh (though describes what Smile Foundation is, which is useful), but their LinkedIn page does and seems to be a RS to support the statement - have added it to the article. PamD 15:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandably, there may be differing opinions on the reliability of LinkedIn or any social media post as a source. Nonetheless, I appreciate your addition to the page. RPSkokie (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by Source Assessment table? You present this as if it was the outcome of a technical and objective algorithm. However, it appears to me that it is nothing but your personal opinion on the sources, especially, in context of this particular person. Let's use facts and not personal opinion. The same sources like national newspapers have been used for other prominent Indian figures. Why are we questioning their credibility of here when these are all of the main English language Indian news papers? Burfi (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would kindly recommend that you take some time to read and investigate the notes added next to each source in the source assessment table. Please be assured that the information contained in this table is not a reflection of my personal opinion, and the majority of the analysis (about the sources) are based on guidelines provided by Wikipedia. RPSkokie (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had looked at your table. To say the least, the column "Pass/Fail" is very arguable, personal judgment if you ask me. What does this even mean: the source fails? Fails what? Your approval? Some reliability criteria? Fails to prove the content referenced? There are sources where you tick all categories green, only to conclude fail. How does this make any sense? Anyway, let's not go into that, because more importantly is ...
    To look holistically: Singh's coverage regularly goes beyond short mention into detailed articles on her entrepreneurial achievements, female empowerment visions, education and career decisions, and/or about her TV representation. This includes quotes from interviews with her but also text written by editors.
    Then, I think we are mixing up two things here: the notability or the quality of sources. To see more clearly, it would be good to look at both separately.
    Regarding Notability:
    Vineeta Singh is covered in various newspapers - basically all Indian newspaper of national significance. Tell me which one has not a story on her? Building a sizeable business from scratch which gives employment to thousands of people and known at the national level where big players already exist (such as Unilever, L'Oreal, Lakme) is definitely notable. Clearly, notable enough that she is interviewed continually by various news outlets, or that her company has become a case study of the best business schools of India [22], or that she is asked by Sony TV to be one of the judges.
    Regarding Sources:
    Take any article about a living Indian person and you will see that its sources are very similar to the ones used here. If you want to play it hard on WP:RSPSS, then almost all Indian sources, and thus all Indian bio-articles, would have severe issues. Maybe this is rather an issue of WP:Bias toward Western media or a quality issue of Indian media - whatever... We have to live with the sources we have in India, and still build a Wikipedia that covers Indian topics sufficiently.
    In my opinion, Enterpreneurs are underrepresented at Wikipedia, especially when it comes to female entrepreneurs. For me, this is an important limitation to be addressed. It takes sweat to build a company of that size from scratch, and it is recommendable to to something for the average Indian women.
    How much better could we have all used our energy improving the article than wasting it on this discussion? When I see the effort you put into your assessment table, it just makes me sad why this effort cannot be spent constructively. Read about the subject, find the better sources that you are missing, and edit text that broadens the content based on theses sources. Just an idea ... Burfi (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my view, RPSkokie's analysis demonstrates how the subject of this article has a particular challenge due to the many unacceptable sources that 'fail' our guidelines for the independent, reliable, and significant coverage necessary to help support notability. The effort and time spent analyzing sources helps protect the encyclopedia and helps improve the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Sources Type Links Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Written by Staff Writer Pass/Fail Notes
Two IIM-A grads shun Rs 1-cr offer News Link Red XN Green tickY Question? Red XN Red XN FAIL A brief mention.
The IITM Nexus (1st ed.), Chennai, India Book Link Red XN Question? Red XN Question? Not Applicable FAIL The publisher; Notion Press is a self-publishing/vanity publishing company.
Sugar Cosmetics Company link Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Not Applicable FAIL company weblink
'As CEO, my job is to get out of their way' Video News Link Question? Question? Question? Green tickY Green tickY ? Possibly a brand profile, with no critical analysis. Founder, speaking for the company and herself.
Sugar Cosmetics surpasses 2 million followers on Instagram Blog Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Not Applicable FAIL promotional blog talking about Instagram followers.
Forbes India W-Power 2021: Role models who will inspire a generation News Link Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY FAIL There is not a single mention of Vineeta Singh in text. "Editor's Note" including an image of the cover showing Singh" - unjustifiable
India's Best B-Schools News Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Not Applicable FAIL There is not a single mention of Vineeta Singh in text. "Image of the cover showing Singh on the right side of the website" - unjustifiable
Self Tweet: Grateful for 2022 🙏 Thanks @BWBusinessworld for this Twitter Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Not Applicable FAIL SPS
Sugar cosmetics: Lips don't lie News Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY FAIL It is a news article about the company, and it includes quotes from the founder(s).
'Investors refused to fund Sugar until my husband joined it': Shark Tank India's Vineeta Singh News Link Red XN Question? Question? Green tickY Green tickY FAIL Quotes from the founder; Vineeta Singh; INTERVIEW. Interviewer: Startup founder of another company. Subject: Sugar company. Publication: Youtube YOUTUBE, Adapted by: Businessworld staff writer - a reasonably lengthy chain.
Sugar Sugar, Ah! Money, Money News Link Green tickY Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY FAIL It is a news article about the company, and it includes quotes from the founder(s).
What makes Sharks take the bait? Vineeta Singh, Namita Thapar share the idea USP that attracts News Link Green tickY Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY FAIL Quotes from the founder; Vineeta Singh; INTERVIEW
<KBC: Here's how Vineeta Singh, Aman Gupta, Anupam Mittal pitched for themselves to grab the hotseat News Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN FAIL Vineeta Singh is the executive director of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd? - There are significant concerns regarding the source's editorial reliability.
Smile Foundation Company Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Not Applicable FAIL NGO weblink. Unable to locate any significant references to Vineeta Singh.
Entrepreneuer India 2019 Awards Awards Link Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable FAIL Company's award, not a personal award.
Forbes India 2019 Women Power Awards Link Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable ? NAWARD; Awards as an afterthought would have made sense if there was substantial coverage of Vineeta Singh to begin with.
India's Top Entrepreneurs: BW Disrupt 40 Under 40, 2022 Awards Link Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable ? NAWARD; Awards as an afterthought would have made sense if there was substantial coverage of Vineeta Singh to begin with.
  • Comment - I don't really understand why interviews in national newspapers are somehow not a signifier of notability. Some of the sources above (specifically newspapers and magazines in India) have editoral staff that's independent of the source, it's not advertorial (or paid for by the subject as far as I know). If they've chosen to interview the subject, that suggests they think the person is notable. JMWt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am really surprised that we are discussing the notability of her for two weeks now, when almost every reputed Indian national newspapers (The Times India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Financial Times) publish about her. Out of many, just one example, On Dec 30, 2022, The Times of India has an exclusive article on her, the content of which could actually double our article.[23]
Out of 100s of entrepreneurs and founders, she is one of the 6 sharks who was got to the SharkTank on Sony TV. So, the Indian media considers her notable enough to publish about her, but here at the English Wikipedia we are discussing the quality of sources, credibility of her work and Journey. A journey like hers should be talked about more and we need more female role models on Wikipedia, especially in area like economics.
She has been in news continually since 2006, 2013, 2018 for various reasons, rejecting a lucrative job offer from Deutsche bank to running marathon when pregnant, to building Sugar & recently almost everyday because of Shark Tank. Getting a big investments by L Catterton in her company and by a popular Bollywood star.
She has been in the news even for various types of marathon races - maybe something that the article should still cover as it symbolises her vision on women strength, motherhood, independence, and health.[24][25][26] Burfi (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dec. 30 2022 WP:TOI source might as well be a press release promoting season 2 because she "spoke exclusively to ETimes TV about her experience of being associated with the show in season one and two and what the second season has to offer" - there is no secondary context or commentary from the source to support notability. The 2023 Economic Times source is a brief mention "On her 13th Mumbai full marathon, Singh took a break from her 'Shark Tank India' duties to finish her run in four plus hours, as she had expected". The 2022 Entrepreneur source is by a contributor, and per WP:RS/P there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces, so it should not be used to support notability. The 2018 Mid-Day source is 3 paragraphs, mostly based on her quotes, and reports she ran a marathon while pregnant, so this is not significant independent coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I started Vineeta Singh, I forgot to link to it from other pages. A few days ago, I linked from the Shark Tank article. Since then, Singh's article attracts about 800 views per day, which is a pretty substantial number. I think this also demonstrates the relevance, besides other arguments above. Tomeasy T C 07:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per burfi and beccaynr, the sources seem reasonable enough for notability and in general its good to err on the side of keeping articles which represent gender diversity. BogLogs (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BASIC, with respect to the source analysis by RPSkokie, which raises important concerns about support for notability from many sources. From my view, there is 2006 coverage in the Telegraph that is more substantial than the TOI mention, and I think this source, combined with other sources per WP:BASIC, helps support notability. The 2021 Forbes coverage is bylined to a staff writer and includes biographical, education, and career coverage that can help develop the article - she is quoted in the article, but there is secondary content. The 2022 Business Today coverage is based on an interview, but the source is covering her speaking out about gender bias, in her past and present, and seems different from the much more promotional coverage related to Shark Tank in some sources. Reviewing the 2022 GQ source again, it covers her being covered in Humans of Bombay, and mentions her net worth "becoming one of the hottest search terms right now" and the churned news from CNBC is about how she is "paid Rs 5 lakh for every single episode of the most popular reality show in the country right now." While not sigcov, it seems like more than trivial coverage. My !vote is weak because there are many promotional sources related to Shark Tank and her business, and independent coverage appears limited. Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 29 January 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 Alias characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Tippin

Will Tippin (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)

Two sources are WP:ROUTINE, third is a fan site. Does not meet fictional character notability. Numberguy6 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target would be the List of Alias characters I believe. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 31 January 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! 08:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butserfest

Butserfest (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)

Music event that fails GNG and is written like a promotional piece. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Putting aside the promo and trivia in the article ("tickets were £15", seriously?). There is some coverage to be found in searches, but it's either regurgitated promotional press releases not written by journalists/authors, university magazines, tabloids like Southern Daily Echo or music blog event reviews. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 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! 04:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RALIE G (Rapper)

RALIE G (Rapper) (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)

Non-notable teenage musician. No evidence of charting, touring, or anything else that would make him a notable musician. Sourcing is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources not enough to make the subject notable, and as such, fails WP:GNG.
    Comment: Thank you C.Fred, wasn't sure which way to go to start this. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 04:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. this is a draft plonked into mainspace by the draft creator. this can't be draftified, there are no reliable sources about the musician. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that the article is likely authored by the subject himself (the photo was uploaded by himself, the primary username is very similar to the subject's name, and I'd bet the IP that started the article is his own before he registered an account). fuzzy510 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. Silikonz💬 04:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Articles for deletion/RPD Entertainment Ltd. was recently closed under speedy G5. Silikonz💬 22:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing admin: Please see history of RALIE G, which has been salted for repeated recreation. This may not be this article creator's first rodeo. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG and as likely self-promotion, given the primary editor's username and the subject's real name, and salt per history of RALIE G. --Kinu t/c 22:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Kinu. I'm going to remove a bunch of references to amazon, apple music, medium, and other non-RS sources – even if it looks overwhelmingly likely that the article will be deleted in a few days, there is no reason why we should keep blatantly inappropriate sources in a biography. --bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 2 February 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! 03:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrey Mallick

Shrey Mallick (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)

It fails WP:NPOL. Meeting Leaders doesn't make anyone notable. He is son of Suman Kumar Mallick, the article is a sock work and a deep discussion is done over that. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 03:25, 29 January 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! 03:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Prakash (banker)

Baldev Prakash (banker) (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 BLP of a businessman is poorly sourced. Routine coverage for his appointment as the CEO of a bank. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Poorly written. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:18, 4 February 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! 03:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoLLUMINATI

SoLLUMINATI (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)

Poorly sourced, a BEFORE search actually worse results than what's in the article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are a mix of unreliable/primary sources while others are a mention or not enough coverage. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:08, 30 January 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! 03:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future Planet Capital

Future Planet Capital (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)

Venture capital fund doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle - I am not sure I agree, but I am new to this and an infrequent editor. However, from what I can see, the company has achieved a significant amount of mentions and references in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the organisation isn’t always the main subject, journalists appear to have found it relevant to mention them alongside the main subject of the article, due to the investment they put in. This has happened numerous times, which suggests some notability (perhaps in more financial circles). Media coverage - on the most part - doesn’t appear to be the result of marketing by the organisation itself, but marketing by the investment companies. TimTibbets (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim. Which sources do you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Please note that the thresholds for articles about companies are higher than for other topics. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I look to your judgement on this, but I would say the Impact Investor article meets WP:CORPDEPTH, no? Some of the citations - Pensions and Investments & Growth Business - appear to be the result of marketing, but the likes of the Financial Times, The Times and South China Morning Post suggest the company has a reputation within the ‘impact investing’ community and in combination suggested, to me, legitimacy. TimTibbets (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 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! 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth" and regurgitated PR and announcements are not "Independent Content". I can't find a single source that meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 20:13, 2 February 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! 03:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa (TV series)

Lisa (TV series) (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)

Zero in-depth sourcing currently. Was redirected, hoping to have it improved, but was not. Due to the commonality of the name, searches were difficult, but not enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Germany, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been noted, searching is difficult due to the commonality of the names – "Lisa" is an extremely common Swedish name and "Magnus Carlsson" is the name of famous Swedish singer Magnus Carlsson; even in combination with the name of the television network, this means that a search mainly leads to hits about pop music. But I tried to dig through the dominating modern Swedish media archive (sv:Mediearkivet) and have added a number of sources to the article. None of them are fantastic, and most of them focus mainly on Carlsson, the creator of the series, with some content specifically about Lisa, but not all of them, and there's enough here to convince me that the article can be kept. /Julle (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as of now, there are sufficient reliable and independent citations and coverage of the subject to meet the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NTV and minimal sources. Serratra (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does it fail NTV? NTV's essay simply says that series are likely to be notable if broadcast on a network. matt91486 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of the current sourcing, none are from independent, reliable, secondary sources which go in-depth about the subject. Despite the efforts of Julle.Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 28 January 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! 01:24, 29 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'lam foundation

I'lam foundation (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)

Other than the one source from the militantwire.com, which is an unreliable source, zero in-depth coverage to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 17:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, there's other sources including MEMRI, Eurasia, The Diplomat, and The Jamestown Foundation, which most are very reliable, and most, but not all go in depth, so it does pass Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH. RowanJ LP (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 22 January 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! 01:18, 29 January 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) 16:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Confederation

Kyrgyz Confederation (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)

A new state invented by the Foggy Kub participant, all sources in the article (except for the encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan", which vaguely characterizes the union of tribes as a state entity, while not mentioning the term Kyrgyz confederation) do not mention the term Kyrgyz confederation in their sources, the user invented the currency, capital and even the official language of lmao. Even if you find something remotely similar to the consensus in academic science, then this article definitely deserves to be deleted as a hoax. The book by Barbara A. West does not mention at all that the Kyrgyz language was official in the "Kyrgyz confederation", there is just a simplified history of the Kyrgyz as tribes in the middle of the Altai and Tien Shan, this is to understand the full scale of the hoax. And yes, the name Dasht-i-Kyrgyz does not exist. Kazman322 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article was NOT created by me, and secondly, the name "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is mentioned in this source:[27]. The language is mentioned in this source - [28].Foggy kub (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first source refers to the territory, not the state, in the second source there is no confirmation of the existence of the Kyrgyz Confederation. Kazman322 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • «in the early 20s of the 16th century, Muhammad-Kyrgyz, whom many Kyrgyz scientists, following O. Karaev, recognize as the first leader of the Kyrgyz tribal union», everything is mentioned directly. Foggy kub (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • About "Dast-i-Kyrgyz". Cited anonymous source of 1675/76 contains the only mention of the phrase "Dast-i-Kyrgyz": "And if any of you get to Tashkent, tell Ubaid Khan that I have gone towards Dasht-i Baglan and Dasht-i Kyrgyz". But let's read the following phrase of the source: "One Kyzylbash caught one Uzbek fellow of three to four hundred Uzbeks who scattered across the Steppe, and brought him to Bayram Khan. During the interrogation, he said: "Muhammad-Timur Khan and Abu Sa'id Khan went towards the fortresses of Baglan and Kyrgyz". Therefore, the term "Dasht-i", in this context, does not mean "state", but only the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area. That is why attributing "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" the meaning of the "name of the state" to this phrase is an original study, which is based on an arbitrary false interpretation of a single mention in a single medieval source. It is important for us that a number of respected reputable modern historical sources analyze the subject of the article, interpret it exactly as described in the article, name the subject of the article exactly as it is done in Wikipedia. Otherwise, such a Wikipedia article will be an original study based on a biased selection and false interpretation of sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is not a fortress, but the name of the state, this is hinted at by the title of the head of the Kyrgyz "Padishah", which means "ruler, king." The article also mentions the union of Kyrgyz tribes under the beginning of Muhammad Kyrgyz (Tagai Biy). Foggy kub (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should not deliberately distort my statements, I was talking about "the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area", but not a "fortress". In the text to which you refer, the author of the text clearly shows that they are talking about the same place, he calls it alternately "the area of fortresses", then "fortresses". And one more thing: it is impossible to refer to medieval primary sources, because, firstly, one should not refer to primary sources at all, and secondly, the interpretation of medieval sources is not allowed to be made by the Wikipedians themselves, this is an unacceptable original research. To interpret the meaning of medieval primary sources can only be made by recognized experts, not by Wikipedians. And one more important point: in general, it is impossible to introduce into Wikipedia something that is mentioned only 1 time in the world historical literature but only in 1 anonymous medieval source, which became available to science only in 2012. We should not be interested in medieval primary sources at all, only and exclusively the opinions of modern recognized experts, who have studied and described the subject of the article in detail in their scientific publications, are important to us. Let us recall the story told by the quoted source: the troops of the Iraqi Kyzylbash and Samarkand Chagatai attacked the Baghlan fortress in Afghanistan. This is the same Baghlan that is mentioned in the text as Dasht-i Baghlan. However, in the part where the siege of the Baghlan fortress is described, the area around the fortress is called "this vilayat". That is, Dasht-i Baghlan and the area around the Baghlan fortress (vilayat) it's the same thing. And now let's remember about the "Kyrgyz fortress", which is mentioned in the text first as "Dasht-i Kyrgyz", then "Kyrgyz fortress". At the same time, from the context, what I wrote earlier, it is obvious that the source is talking about the same place. The same fortress in the Kyrgyz Mountains was mentioned when "The Kyrgyz received this message just at the moment when, having loaded provisions on pack animals, they were already sending it to the Kyzylbash camp. They stopped the caravan with food, and hid themselves in the fortress."
            • So, there is your interpretation, there is my interpretation. You're an dilettante, I'm an dilettante too. Neither your interpretation nor mine can be used in the article, isn't it? After all, the rules categorically forbid using of dilettante's interpretations of medieval primary sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Speaking about the sources, you, as I understand it, have not checked the other sources that I have cited, please read them and only then write something about this. Foggy kub (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, I conclude, we no longer consider valid your argument that the anonymous medieval source you cited allegedly "confirms" the existence of a state called Desht-i-Kyrgyz, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maybe the name is not right, but the state existed and this is confirmed by my sources, which I have given below.Foggy kub (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ok, the name "Desht-i-Kyrgyz" is not correct. Let's gradually, step by step, deal with other arguments. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a source where everything is written in direct words [29]. Foggy kub (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, let's start analyzing the source you have given "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss. Geiss actually mentions "Kyrgyz confederations" many times, and not a single "Kyrgyz confederation". Why? At p. 36 Geiss mentions: "Large Kyrgyz plemias like the Bugu, Sary Bagysh, Solto, Adigine or Saruu were tribal confederacies rather than tribes, since their composition changed." And now let's look at page 98, which you specified as "a source where everything is written in direct words". What is the name of this chapter? "Kyrgyz confederacies". One more time again: not "confederation" but "confederacies", plural form, isn't it?
      • The author begins by quoting a Chinese source from 1770, this source states that 220 years before (in 1550) "Two wings were formed, a northern and a southern one…. Each of these was internally divided into branches." Therefore, the Chinese source does not speak of a single "state" in the form of a "Kyrgyz confederation", but only that the Kyrgyz people did not unite, but, on the contrary, divided into two larger "wings", which were internally fragmented into many "branches". So, no unity, but partition and division. Why? Citation: "when the Khanate of Mughulistan declined, mountainous tribesmen regained their political independence and restructured their political affiliations". The author points out that "The division between a northern and a southern wing would also corresponded to the Kyrgyz confederative wings Ong Kanat (right wing) and Sol Kanat (left wing) which nomadised in northern and southern Kyrgyzstan." But were these "wings" solid "confederations" of Kyrgyz people, even if they were two different ones? No, because the author emphasizes that: "This loose confederation was not the only political alliance involving Kyrgyz, since Kyrgyz tribes sometimes formed military alliances with Kazakh tribes as well." And also "tribal territories were newly divided among tribes and tribal federations which also included considerable Mongol groups". Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you are right, the source is not suitable, but I found a new source that mentions an independent state in the 15-16 centuries:[30]. Foggy kub (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss IS a suitable source regarding the history of the Kyrgyz people. But this source does not support your private point of view, it refutes it. It is forbidden in Wikipedia to tendentiously select only those sources that can somehow support the private point of view of the Wikipedia editor (the author of the article). On the contrary, this Wikipedia editor should present all solid sources, including those that contradict this private point of view and who is trying to drag into Wikipedia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously Bertil Nygren is a political scientist and not an ethnographer, and this term is just a very general concept. Kazman322 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • and what do you mean by that? That the source is not reliable? Foggy kub (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are not looking for those specialized sources that consider in detail and argumentatively the history of the Kyrgyz people in the XV-XVI centuries, but in general any source that (as in this case) is dedicated to the XXI century Putin era, but the "independent state of the Kyrgyz people" in the XV-XVI centuries mentions only once with a single phrase. Bertil Nygren simply reproduces something that he once heard somewhere, most likely in non-academic Kyrgyz sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don’t see the meaning in your words, you say that the source is AUTHORITIVE, and this authoritative source mentions the state of the Kyrgyz, so what is the question? You deviate from the very essence of the discussion, about the existence of the state (which was, I indicated the sources). Foggy kub (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One more time: You are looking for any sources at all that at least mentioned the phrase you are interested in. You don't care about the credibility of these sources, you only care about mentioning a combination of words. But you should look for authoritative academic and neutral sources that consider in detail the period of the history of the Kyrgyz people that interests you. On the contrary, you simply ignore, authoritative academic sources that completely contradict your private point of view, do not even mention these sources. But you must be neutral and you cannot tendentiously select only those sources that work for your personal idea, and the rest of the sources, even if they are of the highest authority, which deny your private idea, simply ignore. This is prohibited by the rules. It is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is obliged to be neutral, and therefore, if the encyclopedia Britannica does not mention the subject of your article at all, then (1) You are obliged to write about it in the article and (2) this is a powerful signal that the subject of the article is questionable, since even the Britannica (or "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss) does not know about it. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The authoritative source ("Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss) does not mention any "independent Kyrgyz state". I remind you that you cited this source as proof of the existence of the phrase "Kyrgyz confederation", didn't you? I have shown that the meaning of the term in this source is the opposite: (1) the author of the source (Geiss) says that even the Kyrgyz tribes were loose (that is, "confederations") and they could include at different times a different set of Kyrgyz or even non-Kyrgyz clans. Geiss, thus, emphasized not "monolithic unity", but just its complete absence. (2) Geiss used the concept of "Kyrgyz confederation" in order to characterize those parts into which the Kyrgyz people was divided, that is, into northern and southern Kyrgyz, each of these parts was characterized by the author as a "confederation" of tribes. Therefore, the author of the source did not use the concept of "Kyrgyz confederation" as the name of a common Kyrgyz state, but on the contrary, Geiss characterized the Kyrgyz tribes loose and unstable in their composition, as well as the disintegration of the Kyrgyz people into parts. Not a union, not unity, not a state, but a disintegration into loose parts. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • The main problem is that you first invent the state, and only then you start looking for its mention in every hole. Kazman322 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your words = emptiness, you also spoke about the Kyrgyz Khanate, but what is the result? The article has been preserved and authoritative sources have been cited. Foggy kub (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another source confirming the existence of the Kyrgyz state in 1514 (as written in the article):[31].Foggy kub (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • in one of your articles it is written that the Kyrgyz khanate ceased to exist in 1514, that is, you yourself are confused in your own terms. Kazman322 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • judging by your words, then it is necessary to rename the article, since you no longer deny the existence of the article. Foggy kub (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are again searching for any sources that would simply mention something that corresponds to your personal ideas about the subject of the article. In this case, you are referring to a certain "Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History and Threats to Survival" (in 4 vol.) by Victoria R. Williams, she also wrote "Celebrating the Customs of life around the world: from the soul of a child for a funeral" (in 3 vol.) [32], "London: Geography, History, and Culture"[33] and also "Etiquette and Taboos around the World: A Geographic Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Customs" [34], "Weird Sports and Wacky Games around the World: From Buzkashi to Zorbing" [35], "Easy Travel Guide to Europe: Everything You Need to Know Before Traveling to Europe" (in 3 vol.) [36]. That is, the author of the source that you have chosen in support of your personal idea is not an academic scientist, the publishing house that published this book intended for a wide range of readers characterizes the author as an "independent writer and researcher". You, me, any of the Wikipedians, can be described as an "independent writer and researcher", right? In other words: the author of the source you found is an ordinary compiler that compiles huge (sometimes in several volumes) publications intended for commercial sale to ordinary people. These books are not any academic scientific works at all.
            • Byt let's look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the section "Early history of Kyrgyzstan". What is written there regarding the existence of an independent Kyrgyz state in the XVI century? Nothing, not a single word. Britannica does not know such a state.[37]
            • Now we see that normal academic sources do not know such an independent Kyrgyz state in the XVI century. I'm talking about "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 by Paul Georg Geiss and the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you either attribute to the source you cited something that was not there (in the Geiss book) or, as is the case with Britannica, an academic encyclopedic source of the highest authority does not mention at all what you would like to have as the subject of the article. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • By your logic, I don't have to do anything at all? I will and should look for any mention of the existence of this state, if the sources that I cited do not interest you (although they should), then what can you say about the encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan" of 2001, which says about the united state of Tagay Biy? Foggy kub (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Regarding this source, you have not answered whether it is authoritative or not. Judging by your activity, you think that you have already won, but you just wrote some off-topic words. If you write about it again, then I will understand that I won this discussion, thanks colleague! Foggy kub (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I'll try to explain again. In Wikipedia, not at all any source that mentions the subject of the article is suitable for writing articles. Before writing articles, a Wikipedia editor should learn how to find sources. But not any sources, but authoritative ones in this subject area. The Wikipedia editor should analyze the author of the source for its compliance with the criteria of authority. The simplest approach is to analyze what the author has published. This allows us to better assess the nature of his work, to understand whether the author is a solid academic expert, or whether the author is a person who simply knows how to write, publish his works and earn money from it.
                • British author Victoria R. Williams wrote "Celebrating the Customs of life around the world: from the soul of a child for a funeral" (in 3 vol.) [38], "London: Geography, History, and Culture"[39] and also "Etiquette and Taboos around the World: A Geographic Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Customs" [40], "Weird Sports and Wacky Games around the World: From Buzkashi to Zorbing" [41], "Easy Travel Guide to Europe: Everything You Need to Know Before Traveling to Europe" (in 3 vol.) [42].
                • Can we consider the author of these popular collections of curious and funny facts, tourist guides to London and Europe, intended for a wide range of readers, to be a solid academic scientist? Can we compare the credibility of this Victoria R. Williams with Paul Georg Geiss, the author of "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia"? Definitely no. We definitely cannot compare the authority of these two people. Williams is a regular compiler of interesting and funny facts, from which she compiles large (sometimes multi-volume) collections and guidebooks. Williams is not an expert on the medieval history of the Kyrgyz people. Victoria R. Williams is not an authority in this subject area. Finally, we do not analyze her books, we do not use them when writing articles on the history of the Kyrgyz people. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources confirming the existence of this state: [43], [44]p.350 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggy kub (talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask for the term KYRGYZ CONFEDERATION. You can't just make up a term from clippings about the Yenisei Kyrgyz and just book references. Kazman322 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You asked for the sources of the existence of the state of the 16-18 centuries, I cited them, please, before a stupid answer, read all the sources, thanks. Foggy kub (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • [45] P.176-179 It mentions the consolidation of the Kyrgyz tribes into a state with their own laws and principles.Foggy kub (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's count this artistic work. Why do I say "artistic"? And how can one characterize the flight of imagination of an author who knows all the thoughts of a medieval figure? Citation (p. 175):

Tagai biy's life is full of dramatic events, battles related to the struggle for the freedom of the people. He realized that there was a very difficult path ahead, but as a man of strong political will, indomitable energy and with the inherent quality of foresight, he could not imagine his life without the sovereignty of his people. Tagai-biy believed first of all in the spirit of the people. He loved to listen to the storytellers Manaschi, being charged with their powerful energy.

  • This is a fiery eulogy, not an academic scientific work. And no references to sources. Why? Because there can be no such links to sources. The author invented all this himself, this is the flight of his artistic imagination. For the author did not get into Tagai-biy's head, did not stand next to him, did not hear his words. He, the author, had nowhere to find out, since no historical sources that would tell about it have been preserved.
  • But back to your source. This is what this source writes about Muhammad-Kyrgyz (p. 177):

in 1517, Muhammad-Kyrgyz became the ruler of the Kyrgyz and the remnants of the Mongolian and Turkic tribes of the Semirechye, Issyk-Kul basin and the Kochkor Valley

  • Even your highly artistic source admits that Mohammed-Kyrgyz in fakt was not at all a "unifier of the Kyrgyz people into a single Kyrgyz state," but created a conglomerate of Mongolian, Kyrgyz and other Turkic tribes. Most of this conglomerate was outside the modern territory of Kyrgyzstan, while the Kyrgyz themselves, who were part of this conglomerate, did not include the southern Kyrgyz at all (the "left wing"). The territory of the tribal conglomerate created by Muhammad-Kyrgyz covered only (let me remind you) Issyk-Kul, Kochkor and Semirechye. That is, the modern territories of the Chu and Issyk-Kul oblasts, and from the Naryn oblast only the Kochkor district. The rest of modern Kyrgyzstan was outside of its tribal conglomerate: Talas oblast, Jalal-Abad oblast, Osh oblast, Batken oblast and the main part of Naryn oblast. The author of your source admits all this, but then the flight of his imagination is unstoppable:

"He actively contributed to strengthening the process of consolidation of Kyrgyz clans and tribes, the growth of ethnic consciousness among the Kyrgyz, strengthened the unification of the "right" and "left" wings of the Kyrgyz tribes."

  • After all, in fact, Muhammad-Kyrgyz divided the Kyrgyz people: he included a minor part of the Kyrgyz people in a multi-tribal conglomerate, the bulk of whose territory and population were not Kyrgyz. At the same time, the main part of the Kyrgyz people was outside this multi-tribal formation.
  • Your source writes that the multi-tribal conglomerate of Muhammad-Kyrgyz entered into an "alliance" with the Kazakh Khanate allegedly "to fight the Mongols," but the "ally" used Muhammad-Kyrgyz for war with... the Sheibanids:

Muhammad-Kyrgyz entered into an alliance with the Kazakh Khanate as the most reliable ally in the fight against Mongol expansion. The Kyrgyz took an active part in the struggle against the Sheibanids, who sought to seize the Syrdarya cities.

  • That is why the warriors of Muhammad-Kyrgyz did not fight "shoulder to shoulder" against the Mongols, but the Kazakhs used Muhammad-Kyrgyz to attack the cities of Turkestan and Tashkent.
  • But let's read your source again. Here is what your source writes about what the political structure of the Kyrgyz was at that time (p. 178):

At the head of each wing was the supreme biy (chonbiy). He was elected annually from among the senior biys – rulers of tribal associations. Not having a significant and permanent military force, he actually had no real power over the senior biy − rulers of tribal associations, and large feudal lords of tribes. Consequently, the position of the supreme biy was of a formal nature and served as a symbol of the unity of all the tribes of a particular wing.

  • Now your source has explained everything to us: there were no "rulers" even at the level of the "wing", the so called "supreme biy" had no real power over the tribes that are part of the "wing", he (according to your source) was only a "symbolic figure" who had no real power.
  • Thus, your source completely denies the idea of the alleged existence of a "single Kyrgyz state" of Tagai-biy (Muhammad-Kyrgyz). He only says that Muhammad-Kyrgyz included several northern Kyrgyz tribes in a multi-tribal confederation, which also included Mongolian and other "Turkic" tribes. The vast majority of Kyrgyz tribes were outside this multi-tribal formation of Muhammad-Kyrgyz. Moreover, your source writes that the political structure of the Kyrgyz people at that time, in principle, did not allow a single all-Kyrgyz government to exist, because tribal leaders and only they had full power, and even the "supreme biy" of each of the "wings" was not a ruler, but was only a symbolic figure without any real power. Have you even read the source you are referring to? After all, the source has never used the term "confederation", much less "state" in relation to the formation that Muhammad-Kyrgyz created. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same source with another page 140, the country "Kyrgyz" is mentioned here:[46].Foggy kub (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source is the "The Tarikh-i-rashidi: A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia" work by a medieval Uighur general and poet Mirza Muhammad Haidar, it was written in 1543. Therefore, this is the primary medieval text. Such documents are the primary information for historians, they cannot be used directly for writing articles. Why? Because medieval primary sources are able to be correctly understood and interpreted only by authoritative experts in this subject area, and not by simple amateur Wikipedia editors like you or me. In any case, the medieval author uses the phrase "Kirghiz country" not to denote an independent Kyrgyz state, but the area where the Kyrgyz people lives. At the same time (have you read the source you are referring to?) on the same page 140, where the author mentions the "Kirghiz country" as a single possession with Mogulistan: "he begged the Khan to give Moghulistan and the Kirghiz country to Baba Sultan". That's why your reference to the medieval primary source is invalid: (1) you (and me too) cannot interpret medieval primary sources yourself, because only recognized experts in this field of science can do this (2) this primary medieval source uses the phrase "Kirghiz country" not as a designation of an independent Kyrgyz state, but as the habitat of the Kyrgyz people. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [47] "Mohammed Kyrgyz created an independent Kyrgyz state". Foggy kub (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the author of this source is Doctor of Historical Sciences Dzholdoshbai Malabaevich Malabaev. Looks attractive, doesn't it? But in what area of history is this Dr. Malabaev? We'll find out now. He had a higher education: he graduated from the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1954. That is, he received a higher communist education during the period of Stalinism. In 1962 he defended his PhD thesis "The struggle of the Kyrgyz Communist Party for the strengthening of the Soviets (1924-1929)", in 1970 he defended his doctoral thesis "Strengthening of the Soviets of Kyrgyzstan during the construction of socialism, 1917-1937". But perhaps this specialist in the history of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan and the strengthening of socialism and Soviet power subsequently retrained to medieval history? No, in 1985 he wrote the book "The Revolutionary Committees of Kyrgyzstan (1918-1923)". That is, from the early 1950s and at least until the mid-1980s, he remained faithful to his theme - the history of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan in the XX century.
  • But who was Dr. Malabaev by profession? Would you think that he was a historian (even of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan)? No, Malabayev was a high-ranking figure of the communist repressive apparatus of Kyrgyzstan. He joined the communist Stalinist repressive apparatus in 1939, he studied for 2 years at the KGB special school in Almaty (1939-40) and after graduation became an investigating officer of the KGB, in 1947-49 he graduated from the KGB Special Higher School in Moscow, after which he became the head of the KGB of the Talas oblast (province) of Kyrgyzstan, in 1951, for his successful service in the KGB, the Stalinist regime awarded him the Order of the Badge of Honor, after which he became Deputy Minister of the KGB of Kyrgyzstan. Malabaev served in the KGB for exactly 20 years (he served Stalin, served Khrushchev) and ended his highly successful service in the high post of Deputy Minister of the KGB of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic. And only after he finished his service in the KGB, he became... That's right, the KGB colonel became a historian of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [48] "Under Mohammed Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz tribes for the first time acted as an independent state."Foggy kub (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kazman322, I can't wait for your answer to the arguments, and the book, as well as your friend Bogomolov.PL, “I can’t answer without emotions”, is this your envy?)☺️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any "friends" on Wikipedia. This is the first. Secondly, I do not know who Kazman322 is, I do not know anything about him (or her) at all. And that's right. Third, stop trying to figure out who is whose friend. This is unacceptable. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [49] "Mohammed Kyrgyz ruled the Kyrgyz Khanate until the end of his life. Under him, the ethno-political structure of the Kyrgyz was finally formed ...". Foggy kub (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, alright, whether it was due to an honest misreading of sources, an attempt to purvey a WP:FRINGE theory or just a straight up hoax, it is abundantly clear that this supposed “Kyrgyz Confederation” did not exist and that no serious sources have discussed the possibility of its existence, and therefore it obviously does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk)
    • Let me ask you, did you at least look at the sources in the article and those that I cited? One source ([50]) speaks of the state of the Kyrgyz, which was founded in 1514. Also in the article there is a source from the encyclopedia of Kyrgyzstan, which mentions the united state of Tagay-biya ([51] p.125–126). Before an unreasonable answer, I ask you to at least open and analyze. Foggy kub (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Not sure whether this is more an issue of a neologism being used as a title ("The Kyrgyz Confederation" proper noun does not appear to exist) or WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. A fair amount of work has gone into this article though so I would like to let the authors work on this with close attention to WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and see if it passes review in the future. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and do not draftify. This is clearly OR and no amount of wrangling with it in draft space can overcome that. Mccapra (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright, and perhaps also salt, this piece of invention is not now and never will be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found new, more authoritative sources that mention this state:[52] (p.124—127), [53] ("History of the Kirghiz SSR", volume 1, 1984, p.448). I have now shown you two sources from the national encyclopedias of Kyrgyzstan, where not only this state is mentioned, but its essence is described. Foggy kub (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the sources you cite are Kyrgyz, but for neutrality and balance, it is necessary to have non-Kyrgyz sources. As you know, both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Paul George Geiss in no way confirm the alleged "existence of an independent Kyrgyz state" at the beginning of the XVI century. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • [54]. Foggy kub (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to joke like that, I have already analyzed in detail (Jan 23 - Jan 27) of this author of popular travel guides to London and Europe and a compiler of multi-volume collections of interesting and funny facts. This author is not authoritative in the field of medieval history in general and the medieval history of the Kyrgyz people in particular. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • For your information, these sources are already enough and this already proves that the state existed. They also wanted to delete the article "Kyrgyz Khanate", but after these sources, the deletion was rejected. Thanks. Foggy kub (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • When you run out of arguments do you just say "There are enough sources"? Quantity does not mean quality. I see how in fear of deleting the article you are so hastily looking for any mention in self-published books that you don’t even notice that these books have already been posted. Kazman322 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, the article can be considered complete, now I will ask everyone to read it, check the sources and generally analyze the information. Regarding "History of the Kirghiz SSR, Volume 1, 1984" and "Kyrgyzstan: Encyclopedia" I cannot understand why you ignore the arguments of our colleague Foggy kub in every possible way. As for your words "All the sources that you cite are Kyrgyz, but for neutrality and balance, non-Kyrgyz sources are necessary" I don't understand your claim, these are NATIONAL encyclopedias, and "History of the Kirghiz SSR" is generally an official work of the Academy of Sciences of the History of the Kirghiz SSR.Th3Shoudy (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • National Kyrgyz sources reflect only the Kyrgyz version of their national history. Wikipedia (any language version) cannot be a reflection of only one national point of view. Otherwise, we would write articles about the history of Russia based exclusively on Russian national encyclopedias, and this would be one-sided and non-neutral. That is why, in order to avoid a systematic deviation into the national version of events, it is necessary to take into account neutral foreign academic and encyclopedic sources. As you know, Britannica does not know about the subject of the article, does not mention a word about it. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your example with the History of Russia is incorrect. Whose history will be more attractive for studying, Russia or Kyrgyzstan? I think there is no need to say too much here. Well-known English-language sources did not pay much attention to the study of the History of Kyrgyzstan, and I think that you will agree with me here. "Reflect only the Kyrgyz point of view" And what would another point of view look like in your opinion? I ask you to pay attention that the article does not say that the Kyrgyz had some kind of strong state, the article is primarily about an independent STATE EDUCATION, about the independence of the Kyrgyz tribes. I think a quote from Friedrich Wilheim Nietzsche is perfect here. "The nation that perceives the interpretation of its history through the eyes of a neighbor will never survive."Th3Shoudy (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Instead of citing foreign non-Kyrgyz sources that are confirmed in academic literature (according to Wikipedia rules), you quote Nietzsche and talk about the right of the Kyrgyz to their state, is this your potential? Kazman322 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Salvio giuliano 16:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Who wrote the article? The author (User:Th3Shoudy) was permanently blocked in Russian Wikipedia as this is the sock-puppet of another vandal permanently blocked in the Russian Wikipedia. But take a look at his activity on Wikimedia Commons: systematic illegal file downloads. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • For starters, I did NOT create the article. And besides, choose expressions, I wonder where you got the idea that I'm someone's puppet? Looks like you yourself came up with the reason for my blocking in Russian Wikipedia, colleague. As for my publications on the Wikimedia Commons, for some reason they stood for almost a year, but suddenly you began to guard my actions when you saw my activity in working on this article, or am I wrong, colleague? I can’t understand how Wikimedia and Russian Wikipedia are connected with this article, why are you trying to denigrate me in front of others?Th3Shoudy (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi colleague, I'm Lauriswift911, it's unpleasant to see such statements about me, since I only helped to create an article, and I am not a puppet either, but if we move on to the discussion, why are you instead of answering the arguments from “Foggy kub” and "Th3Shoudy ", changed the subject to mine and their accounts?
        • Yes, maybe I was blocked in the Russian Wikipedia, but does this mean that the fact that "we" created an article already on the English Wikipedia, should it be deleted? Although all the arguments are clear here, and you are only talking about the name, they say, “confederation” is not written anywhere, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will there be answers to our arguments? Or do you need to take your time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear “Bogomolov”, will there be answers about the state? Or did you lose the discussion and need to change the topic of conversation to accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry alleged by User:Bogomolov.PL

Cianzera

User:Cianzera (parental account):

  • blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (19 April 2020);
  • blocked indefinitely in German Wikipedia (19 March 2021);
  • blocked indefinitely in Kyrgyz Wikipedia (27 February 2022).
  • in English Wikipedia this account was created 19 April 2020, at the same day when this account was blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia. But this account was too toxic.
Lauriswift911

User:Lauriswift911 is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

The English Wikipedia on the personal page of this account User:Lauriswift911 says that his nickname in social networks is @cianzera and his ideology is Nationalism.

23 January 2023 account Lauriswift911 attempted to create a duplicate account called Cianzera911 [56].

This account created the article Kyrgyz Confederation 20 January 2023.

Th3Shoudy

User:Th3Shoudy is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

This account made the main number of edits in the article Kyrgyz Confederation, in fact, it was he who wrote the article.

  • Once again I ask you to watch your manners. You have not provided a single sensible argument why I am someone's puppet, you have not provided a single sensible argument why I am a vandal, all that you have just written is your personal arguments, is it worth saying that you do not follow the rules of decency on Wikipedia calling everyonein a row by vandals and puppets? Can you provide examples of my vandalism in the Russian Wikipedia? You avoided the question about the encyclopedia in every possible way during the debate, and now you have changed the subject in order to denigrate three people at once. Is it worth saying that you and your colleague Kazman were looking for ways to somehow make me and others who worked on this article lower in the eyes of others? Your behavior is unacceptable, instead of debating specifically about the information contained in the article, you arranged some sort of trial for the defendants, I will ask more reputable patrolmen to deal with this matter.Th3Shoudy (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your behavior is unacceptable, instead of debating specifically about the information contained in the article, you arranged some sort of trial for the defendants, I will ask more reputable patrolmen to deal with this matter. Th3Shoudy (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Foggy kub

User:Foggy kub is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

  • blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (4 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [58]
  • blocked indefinitely in Kazakh Wikipedia (2 October 2022)
  • blocked indefinitely in Bislama Wikipedia (4 October 2022) with reason new user with a provocative contribution

For example User:Foggy kub totally vandalized page in Chuvash Wikipedia Ормон хан (generally page name is of Ormon Khan, but the article is filled with meaningless texts, and as a portrait of Kyrgyz ruler Ormon Khan is a photo of the US President Calvin Coolidge with the caption "ass itches" in Russian).

  • This episode really calls into question any good intentions of the user, and this has long been known to everyone on the Russian Wikipedia. Kazman322 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To whom is "everyone"? You and your Bogomel lied to the administrators in the same cunning way, blocked me without any evidence, and besides, what does the Russian Wikipedia have to do with it? If you want to continue to lie, then stay on your Wikipedia and write fabulous articles. Foggy kub (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Foggy kub account is the main defender of the article Kyrgyz Confederation.

So, we observe the coordinated attack of the InterWiki vandal's, who uses a whole "team" of his sock-puppets. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DECEIT AND FALSE!
Yes, I vandalized the Chuvash Wikipedia, I admit my guilt and I am ready to be punished for this, but the rest that Bogomel said is a pure lie, these persons (Th3Shoudy, Lauriswift, Cianzera) have nothing in common with me, we edit articles together and everything is the same I can say about you and Kazman.
I was unfairly blocked on Russian Wikipedia without verification, dear administrators of the English Wikipedia, I am ready to be verified for anything in order to finally prove my case and freely edit on Wikipedia.
Bogomel and Kazman are probably also the same person, or perhaps a team, since together they edit the same articles on RuWiki and Wikimedia, if someone is wrong, they still support each other. The negative view on the side of Kyrgyzstan is typical nationalism, there is nothing more to add. Foggy kub (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kozaryl

User:Kozaryl is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

This account did not participate in the work on the article, but, nevertheless, "another brick to the wall".

And numerous other sock-puppets: Foggy254, Torsva45, Teodor342 ftk, X-man super, Konstanta.A, Лис По, Xakasya911 Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False Information

What are these accounts and why are they here? They, judging by the edits, never edited the English Wikipedia. Stop digressing from the topic, Bogomel. Foggy kub (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of WP:NATIONALIST nonsense

All this bickering and nonsense reminds me of exactly what my essay WP:NATIONALIST is about. Hopefully we can get some admin attention to this. Getting close to time for WP:ANI. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion

I've taken this to WP:ANI#WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation for administrator oversight. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:40, 5 February 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. There were suggestions to merge, but the originally suggested target may not be appropriate. The closing here does not indicate that a merge should not happen. Feel free to discuss possible merge targets at the articles' talk page[s]. Joyous! | Talk 02:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S/2004 S 3

S/2004 S 3 (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)
S/2004 S 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S/2004 S 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a broad consensus to redirect most of the small moons of Jupiter and moons of Saturn, and this has been done for about half of Jupiter's irregular satellites. Although users seem to support keeping most, if not all, of the inner satellites, these ones haven't even been confirmed to exist, and unconfirmed objects are rarely notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moonlet. That article deserves more coverage (focused on Saturn specifically, I personally don't like how it's being [marginally] used to refer to specifically small moons of asteroids and planets) than it has right now, and having it briefly mentioned in Moons of Saturn#Ring moonlets and Rings of Saturn#Moonlet doesn't really do it much justice when it's really a fully-fledged phenomenon (mostly for Saturn, but possibly for Jupiter as well) that has been studied extensively by researchers. It should be the appropriate place to discuss the other Saturnian moonlets like Draft:Peggy (Moonlet) as well. Nrco0e (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Moonlet per Nrco0e. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Liz makes a good point. While it seems a bit odd to me to have a detailed article on something that we know doesn't exist (and we weren't under the impression that it existed for very long), the Moonlet article in its current state does not really work as a merge target. Double sharp (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Moonlet as long as nothing is lost. Urhixidur (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we've already gone through our differing views on the moon articles in general, but I would like to point out that these cases are a bit different from the normal: it is not even certain that they exist. Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion after looking at the Merge target. All of these articles are much longer and more detailed than the brief article that it is proposed they be merged into. There is no list of moons or moonlets on Moonlet so it's unclear to me how the content of these articles could be merged. I wonder if there is a better redirect or merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see my comment on the 1st relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 29 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Taylor (journalist)

Neil Taylor (journalist) (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, no additional sources on this specific person could be found (other than wikipedia mirrors). TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 03:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions although it's hard to see a reason to keep unless more sources are located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. His books C86 and All That and Document and Eyewitness received plenty of coverage, as has his role in compiling the C86 compilation: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. --Michig (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 21 January 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! 01:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlike Michig I am unimpressed by the links, above, as well as those I came across. The articles above have only mentions of Taylor and of his books. I found no reviews of the books, and all of 13 ratings on Amazon of "Document and Eyewitness". It's listed as "#10,070 in Rock Music (Books)". He gets a name-check in articles about C86 and its redo, but not enough for BIO. Lamona (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "found no reviews of the books" - three of the links I listed above are reviews of his books. --Michig (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right (at least 2 of them, one I cannot access - FT). I was looking in standard book sources. Other than FT, which I have to take on faith, the other two are Record Collector and Louder Than War. Both are quite brief, and I doubt if those would be enough to establish notability for the book. However, they clearly do not establish notability for the author. Lamona (talk) 16:29, 29 January 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 The West Wing characters. There is also a suggestion to redirect to The West Wing#Main_characters, a possible change of target can be discussed on the article's talk page. There appears to be disagreement about whether or not there is content to be merged, so I have left the current content in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Santos

Matt Santos (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)

As in several recent AfD's, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, does not meet WP:GNG, please see WP:NOTPLOT. Was redirected several times, which is probably the best outcome, but an editor insists on reverting the redirect. Onel5969 TT me 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect, I would have said merge but there's nothing to merge. The problem with this article is that instead of discussing Santos as a character, it treats him as a real-life personage and simply presents an enormous biography and plot summary. If you compare to the Guardian article you will see the difference: the Guardian article looks at the relevance of Santos as a mirror to real politics, comparing him to Obama and discussing the scriptwriter's intentions. Had the article's author found a few more sources like the Guardian, and written about the character's meaning from outside, instead of writing as though we were all in the character's universe, we'd have an article, and not a piece of fan-cruft. I'd have no prejudice against someone doing the job properly, if further sources emerge, but until then: TNT. Elemimele (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As mentioned by Elemimele above, there isn't much to merge that is sourced or written in an out-of-universe style. Joyous! | Talk 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What a destructive proposal. There was a tremendous amount of published critical commentary about the Santos character, in newspapers and magazines, during the TV series's final years. The fact that Google does a terrible job of indexing them doesn't vitiate it's existence. A Google Books search shows the existence of more than enough critical commentary to sustain the article, even if the complete texts are not consistently on line. This enterprise of reducing Wikipedia to subjects which are easy to research on line is painfully foolish, and should be discouraged. Vivian 166.159.85.90 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would actually link to the sources you found, your argument could carry some weight. Right now it's just WP:THEREARESOURCES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge There is some coverage on google books, but not enough to sustain a separate article. There is certainly enough material to cover this character somewhere, per WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm assuming that List of The West Wing characters is the proposed Merge/Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 29 January 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. I was going to close this discussion as No consensus but even the critical source review shows three sources exist, in this editor's opinion, that count towards GNG. So, I'm closing this one as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M Lhuillier

M Lhuillier (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)

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 14 overturned this article's speedy deletion and sent it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Philippines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there are sufficient newspaper articles in existence to meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every source I looked at felt like paid advertising. "M Lhuillier offers affordable insurance plans for every Filipino" really? WP:N is in debate due to independence issues. WP:CORP doesn't seem close. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a quick google search I think there are many articles online that prove the business of the company. Including articles from Philippine government agency that do business with the said company. https://pia.gov.ph/press-releases/2022/09/07/gsis-partners-with-m-lhuillier-to-expand-loan-payment-solutions I agree that many of them may seem like promotions but is that not typical of a financial services company in a developing market like the Philippines? I found one article on the competitive landscape of the Remittance industry by a berkshire hathaway company that also discusses the said company as part of the remittance industry of the Philippines https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221222005213/en/Philippines-Remittance-Market-Size-Share-Trends-Analysis-Report-2022-2030---Partnerships-Between-Companies-Boosting-Remittance-Services---ResearchAndMarkets.com. 103.44.234.245 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Lenticel
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://mb.com.ph/2022/09/07/gsis-expands-loan-payment-channels-through-m-lhuillier/ Yes Yes = Manila Bulletin is a national broadsheet. Yes significant coverage of a deal between the company and GSIS (Although this article borders on routine reporting) ✔ Yes
https://manilastandard.net/gallery/news-in-photos/314258540/gsis-lhuillier-tieup.html Yes Yes Manila Standard is a national broadsheet ? not large enough to be considered a press release but also not large enough to have good info on the company. ? Unknown
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-business/2019/05/31/1922270/top-100-cebuanomichel-lhuillier Yes feature article about the company's founder Yes Philippine Star is a national broadsheet Yes has significant mention of the pawnshop company. ✔ Yes
https://mb.com.ph/2021/06/01/m-lhuillier-offers-affordable-insurance-plans-for-every-filipino/ No press release Yes Manila Bulletin is a national broadsheet. No press release ✘ No
https://www.bworldonline.com/corporate/2017/09/12/45221/aai-unit-teams-m-lhuillier/ No press release for Black Arrow Express, M Lhuillier's partner Yes Business World is a national broadsheet No press release ✘ No
https://tempo.com.ph/2017/10/03/m-lhuillier-strengthens-core-mission-of-being-tulayngpamlyang-pilipino-with-mlkwentopadala-promo/ No promotion of the company's story contest ? Tempo is a tabloid although it's not known for its sensationalism. No promotion ✘ No
https://www.philstar.com/business/banking/2018/11/13/1868006/m-lhuillier-ventures-logistics Yes relatively neutral reporting on a deal between M Lhuillier and QuadX Yes Philstar is a national broadsheet Yes significant coverage of the company (although this borders routine reporting) ✔ Yes
https://www.manilatimes.net/2018/09/26/public-square/dhl-express-m-lhuillier-team-up-for-improved-remittance-service/445565 ? it's behind a paywall but the first few sentences look like a press release value not understood The Manila Times is national broadsheet ? high likely to be press release ? Unknown
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/4980/new-deal-designates-m-lhuillier-as-third-party-collectors-for-veco No press release Yes SunStar is a local but reliable newspaper No press release ✘ No
https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/12/14/22/commuters-can-now-reload-beep-cards-at-m-lhuiller-branches No press release Yes ABS CBN is a national media conglomerate No press release ✘ No
https://www.manilastandard.net/business/biz-plus/346919/m-lhuillier-brings-pop-tv-closer-to-filipinos.html No Is a press release Yes Manila standard is a national broadsheet No Press Release ✘ No
https://www.philstar.com/sports/2020/07/13/2027691/look-back-1988-pff-national-champions-cebu Yes seems to be a sports article Yes Philstar is a national broadsheet No This is about the M. Lhuillier-Cebu squad which is founded by the pawnshops' founder and is part of the M. Lhuillier Group of Companies. ✘ No
https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/164716/cebu-safari-dream-come-true Yes seems to be a feature article Yes Inquirer is a national broadsheet No Source is actually about the Cebu Park under the M. Lhuillier Group of Companies, not the financial/pawnshop arm itself. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Weak Delete There are reliable sources here but they support the M. Lhuillier Group of Companies instead of the Pawnshop company. The Pawnshop/financial company itself, on its own, might not be notable enough as most of the sources that supports it are press releases. --Lenticel (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: Except for the Manila Bulletin piece, none of the pieces you have deemed a press release (Business World, SunStar, ABS CBN and Manila standard) has anything that suggests the articles are press releases. How did you come to that conclusion? Orasims (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orasims: Can you justify those articles as neutral and significant coverage with their wording style? I do agree that press release might not be the best term for them but if you have a better term for them then I'll change my assessment. --Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: As long as the article has nothing that confirms dependence (tagged with a 'press release', 'sponsored' label or has company contact information as is the case with the Manila Bulletin piece), I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that those pieces aren't independent. Also being Philippines publications, international publications sometimes have relatively lenient standards for their writing and wording style. Plus for at least 3 of the 4 pieces, I don't think they are bad with their wording style. The Business World article, for example, is very justified to me. Same for SunStar and ABS CBN. I read the full articles. Orasims (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: For the Business World article, what part of wording style wasn't neutral for independence? Orasims (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orasims: Can you point where in the article satisfies WP:ORGIND? --Lenticel (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heres an article by a berkshire company that probably should be included. More researched based I would argue. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221222005213/en/Philippines-Remittance-Market-Size-Share-Trends-Analysis-Report-2022-2030---Partnerships-Between-Companies-Boosting-Remittance-Services---ResearchAndMarkets.com and https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5665129/philippines-remittance-market-size-share-and?utm_source=BW&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=mgtt7v&utm_campaign=1796231+-+Philippines+Remittance+Market+Size%2c+Share+%26+Trends+Analysis+Report+2022-2030+-+Partnerships+Between+Companies+Boosting+Remittance+Services&utm_exec=chdo54prd 103.44.234.245 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)Learned about Churnalism, I think I should keep my press release statement though as the term is too accusatory for my taste. --Lenticel (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC) @Lenticel: I think the article as it stands satisfies WP:ORGIND. Can you please elaborate where in the wording style of Business World article isn't neutral for independence? Orasims (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Orasims: I think there's no information there that was produced by the author that cannot be found in a press release. Can you point which part of the article satisfies WP:ORGIND? --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: As answered earlier, the article as it stands including its wording style and information is reasonable and satisfies WP:ORGIND. Can you please share the press release you think was used to create the Business World article to compare? Orasims (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpingWorld: Have you checked the ones used in the article? If so, why are they not reliable? Can you explain? Orasims (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orasims,Check the Source assessment table: prepared by User:Lenticel. Most of those sources faill GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpingWorld: Why are the sources not reliable though? A source doesn't need to pass GNG to be reliable. Also, Lenticel themselves marked almost every source as reliable. Orasims (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In it's current incarnation (about the financial company), it does not seem notable. However, no prejudice against recreation as an article about the group if it can be found notable. Clyde!Franklin! 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Keep. See below. Clyde!Franklin! 03:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ClydeFranklin: Can you provide your rationale why the financial company is not notable? Have you checked the sources used in the article? What do you think? Orasims (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orasims, I mainly based my !vote on Lenticel's chart and didn't think there were enough sources for notability, but, honestly, looking again, I do now think there is sufficient notability and have striked my vote. Clyde!Franklin! 03:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple in-depth news articles about the pawnshop/financial company in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. Examples are Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Business World, The Manila Times, SunStar and ABS CBN. It's argued that independence is in question for some of the articles being churnalism, but a quick google search turns up no press releases that use the same text. Orasims (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NCORP per above arguments. Sources in the article are reliable enough, with a lot of them in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as per above arguments. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 03:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Research reports such as this from Grand View Research and this from Ken Research are considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic passes NCORP. HighKing++ 18:58, 31 January 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! 00:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Coxhead

John Coxhead (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:NPROF and WP:GNG Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 29 January 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! 00:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parama padam (disambiguation)

Parama padam (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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious primary topic, which is already at the base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nominator's rationale is correct. Hatman31 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 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_January_29&oldid=1157217952"