Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Gum-chol[edit]

Chang Gum-chol (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nagol0929. History6042 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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! 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Jong-gil[edit]

Chin Jong-gil (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gopalji Radhabihari Ashram (Santdham)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable building. There do not appear to be any reliable sources on it in the English-language. A search on Google produced no hits. The two "citations" in the article are to a Wikipedia article and a blog. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above was written, the creator of the article has added eight citations to news sources, but the article does not use the information in these eight news sources. They are just padding to make it look as though the temple was notable.
Citations [1], [5], [7] and [8] are about local protests about encroachment or seizure of temple land; I think it they are probably about the same temple as the Wikipedia article, though they give it a different name. There is not enough information to understand the dispute (or maybe Google translate is just not good enough).
  1. [1] This is to a news story in Sylhet news, 20 February 2019, "Human chain demanding rescue of temple site in Lakhai", and concerns a temple called the "Gopal Jiu Ashram". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
  2. [2] This is sanatantv.live, which is a spiritual channel ran by Sanatan India Networking Pvt. Ltd.
  3. [3] A Bengali Wikipedia article that has two "citations": (a) to sanatantv.live, and (b) to an English-language Wikipedia article.
  4. [4] This is a blog post. It is not a reliable source.
  5. [5] This is a news story in dainikbanglarodhikar.com, 26 June 2020, "Lakhai of Habiganj accused of grabbing the 163-year-old Shree Shee Gopal Ashram - Daily Bangla's Odhikar", and concerns a temple called the "Gopal Jiu Ashram". The content contradicts some of the information it is cited for in the Wikipedia article.
  6. [6] This another citation to sanatantv.live, a spiritual channel ran by Sanatan India Networking Pvt. Ltd.
  7. [7] This is a news story in amadernikli.com, 20 February 2019, "Human chain to free the land of ashram in Lakhai". It contains similar content to citation [1]. It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
  8. [8] This is a news story in the Habiganj Express, 20 February 2019, "Human chain to free the encroachment of ashram land in Lakhai". The photograph in the news article suggests that it is about the same temple as the Wikipedia article. It contains similar content to citation [1]. It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
  9. [9] This is a news article in the Daily Khaborer Alo, 6 September 2023, "Appearance of Lord Krishna is celebrated in Lakhair". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
  10. [10] This is a news article in the Daily Khaborer Alo, 11 December 2022, "Sri Sri Rasbihari Katia Maharaj is coming to Sylhet". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
  11. [11] This is a news article in protidinbangladesh24.com, dated "2 weeks ago": "Mangal Shobhayatra on the occasion of Lord Krishna's '5249th' auspicious Janmashtami in four districts". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article previously existed as Gopal Jiu Ashram (Santdham). It was moved to draft on 10 September 2022, and again on 3 March 2023.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Ņikitina[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. History6042 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hurst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Hurst (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 majority of the sources are affiliated with Hurst (such as CreativeGood or Gel). A random spot check reveals the independent sources such as BusinessInsider and American Libraries briefly mention him, once, not satisfying in-depth coverage. There are also many unreliable citations to blogs, and the article seems promotional.

Furthermore, the article currently has enough unimportant detail that WP:BLOWITUP applies. Bremps... 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. What makes this person outstanding and deserving a Wikipedia article?
ContributorMix (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mark Hurst is an obscure consultant who hosts a programme on a New Jersey-based radio station. He appears to be non-notable. The article brings out that various notable people have made presentations at one or another annual Gel conference, and Mark Hurst founded Gel. But that does not make Mark Hurst notable. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Without seemingly any WP:SIGCOV, this subject currently fails all notability guidelines. If reliable independent sources can be found, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. User:Let'srun 03:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Heng[edit]

Elizabeth Heng (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)

Unnecessary article about a political candidate who lost every race she ran in. Most of the articles cited are about a single ad she ran in her 2018 campaign. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:1E. The ad could be (and is) discussed on the page for the 2018 race. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (from a major contributor to the page). The deletion argument above is definitely lacking. Heng is known for three separate things: two runs for congress and for her political action committee. So WP:1E does not apply and the 2018 election page does not cover the breadth of the information. But also, her 2018 campaign received far greater than WP:MILL coverage. It is unusual for a "normal" candidate to receive an op-ed about her in the Wall Street Journal. It is unusual for a candidate's advertisements to get banned, then have the companies publicly reverse the ban after outrage. These were covered in non-local publications. That stands on its own. Then following that and separately, her attack ad received more than enough press to meet GNG, including articles in Newsweek, Slate, Daily Beast, Washington Post, VOX and MSNBC. Definitely more than two reliable, independent secondary sources.Nweil (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a losing candidate and forming a PAC does not make you notable. By your logic, every perennial candidate would be entitled to a Wikipedia page, because every time they ran for office would be a different thing they're "known for." You basically just proved my point: the only thing she's done that has gotten any in-depth coverage is her 2018 attack ad; ergo, she is only known for one event, so she fails 1E. The discussion of her attack ad can be moved to the 2018 election page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong on the facts and that seems like a bad recipe to base important decisions on. The attack ad is a completely separate thing. Not in 2018. Nweil (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Doesn't change the fact that she is not notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Redirect I believe that the pair of controversies around her ads plus the WSJ op-ed makes her more notable than most unsuccessful candidates (although I accept that it still might not reach the bar required to keep). If there is a consensus to delete, I think that it should be redirected to the 2018 election rather than deleted outright.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam11333 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Founding the PAC and that coverage is giving me pause. Without that coverage, this is an easy delete, but with it she may be notable. Although, BottleofChocolateMilk's argument that even if she's notable everything notable about her is already covered in other articles is pretty persuasive and has me leaning delete. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed attempts to become a politician are not notable, and if you remove all of that from the article, I don't think the PAC stuff would make her notable either. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they can show that either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those grounds anyway, or (b) their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you agree that between the Slate article and the NYT article, WP:GNG is met? This is not coverage of a candidate, she was not running for anything at this time. Its simply coverage of a public figure. Both of those have her name in the headline, national respected publications. Even if you completely take away 2018, she meets WP:GNG. Nweil (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles are just about the ad, so WP:1E applies here. Has there been any national, in-depth coverage of her within the past 4 years, or really any time besides September 2019? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re using WP:1E wrong. Two RSes count for GNG even if they are from the same event. Also, national is not a criteria, I just included it above to show that the RSes I mentioned are above reproach. The thing I’m frustrated with is that you all are using the 2018 failed candidacy to penalize someone. I get that you have candidates creating pages for themselves all the time in the course of attempting to gain notoriety. And you rightly nuke those page. This is a completely different scenario. And while being a candidate does not gift this person a page, it also doesn’t penalize them from getting one based on further coverage. It’s like you are salting the ground when someone loses a race. That’s not fair. Nweil (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard that "Two RSes count for GNG even if they are from the same event." If there is such a policy, please give a link. However, WP:IE does say "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident,..." The way I read this is that if an event (such as the ad) is notable, then one would create an article for it. However, if the event itself is not notable, then a person cannot be notable for that event. Notability can of course be established for other reasons. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree both articles are more about the advertisement, which would almost certainly be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 08:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not just instantly met the moment two sources exist. For one thing, as noted above by other editors, those sources are far less about Elizabeth Heng, and far more about the ad — but for another, GNG is not just "count the sources and keep anything that has more than one". GNG is not just a number, it's an interplay between the number of sources and the context of what the sources are covering the person for. So two footnotes is enough if the person has an inherent notability claim that passes the SNG for their occupation (e.g. the article on an NPOL-passing state or federal legislator can be started on just two sources, even though it still requires more content and sourcing before it would be considered a good article) — but if the person doesn't pass any SNG, and instead you're shooting for "notable anyway because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just two sources to get there. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly disagree on this. The way I read NPOL, an article on a state or federal legislator can be started even without two sources. This happens with politicians from way back when, like the 1800s. For those who don't pass the SNG for NPOL, they still are notable if they pass the GNG bar. Which, as much as you are talking about interplay etc, is two sources. This is still a very high bar. Think about it. There are relatively very few people who have had their name in a New York Times news headline. Elizabeth Heng is one of those people. The high bar of notability is met here. Nweil (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn - did not see that this article was brought to AfD in July with a result of Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Agrebi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Omar Agrebi (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 article about a volleyball player. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. As this is due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koldok, North Dakota[edit]

Koldok, North Dakota (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)

Another GNIS stub, this time fleshed out slightly by commentary from the entry. And this time, searching is quite fruitful, for it shows that this was one end of a helper district on the railroad (see here for instance). This is borne out by the aerials, which show the traces of a turning wye decades after it was abandoned. Unfortunately, they also show nothing else there, and I ican find no reference to this as a town per se, thought I get lots of hits on the nearby WMA. So this appears to be a NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Eastmain, can you be more concise on what action you seek to happen here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Koldok State Game Management Area. It might have been a populated place when the railroad station was there, but the game management area can more easily be verified. I would characterize it as a park rather than a populated place. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I haven't seen moves like this happen very often in AFDs but let's see what others think. Liz Read! Talk!
I'd be ok with the move, but would the game management area meet GNG? If so, would you have the time or inclination to modify the revised article to demonstrate that. Would it help if I volunteered to assist? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider page move and address 78.26's questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Views are roughly split between keeping and merging. Neither of these requires deletion, so any discussion about them can happen outside of the context of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cranes of Great Britain[edit]

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

There is only one species of crane that regularly occurs in the UK, and two other vagrants. The article currently is just overly detailed statistics about the common crane's breeding in the UK. It's not like cranes are particularly special in British culture, the way they are in East Asia, so no real reason to have this article. AryKun (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has more than just statistics: it has qualitative information about behavior, history, and conservation. It is also well-sourced. HenryMP02 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That much information could be added to literally any article about a bird in <insert Western European country here>. My point is that there is no cultural or ecological significance to the population of British cranes that parallels for example the reverence for cranes in Chinese mythology. The conservation efforts section is exactly what I’m talking about when I say trivia; it’s a blow by blow account of basically every change in crane population in the UK. AryKun (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you are right. While I would still argue that some of the content of the article is good (bad being the tables and year-by-year population remarks), I do see now that the subject itself (Cranes in Great Britain) is not so special as to warrant its own article. Whatever good content there is could be merged into the respective species articles. I will strikethrough my old comment and favor Partial merge per Elmidae. HenryMP02 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge One resident species plus two rare vagrants? This is "Common crane in Great Britain", and as such should form a subsection of Common crane - some of it, definitely minus the tables. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of "Cranes of Great Britain" very clearly meets WP:GNG by sources existing in the article (British Birds, BBC, Birding World, Yorkshire Post, and more). This is classic WP:NOTPAPER, and rests comfortably within the First pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This quotation from pillar 1 directly contradicts the nomination rationale of no real reason to have this article. Later discussion above mentions "trivia" however this does not fall afoul of WP:TRIVIA or even WP:HTRIVIA. Within the scope of this article, and especially the section it's contained under ("Recolonisation of Norfolk Broads") the detail is not overly excessive, note that much of that coverage is specifically about conservation and thus populations and changes thereof are highly relevant. If any editor feels it is too detailed for comfortable reading, please improve upon it or discuss it on the article talk page. —siroχo 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A word to the wise: howling out of the gate with "strongest possible keep" on the base of weak arguments damages your credibility and gives you zero room for discussion. These things aren't decided on the base of who makes the loudest chest-thumping display. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I do generally try not to do that. Seeing the progression of the discussion I wanted to make it clear I thought there was a mistake underway. I don't feel my arguments are weak. GNG + NOTPAPER + 5P1. —siroχo 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording of my !vote. Acknowledging here for you and also below in a new comment. Apologies again. —siroχo 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve written for a specialised encyclopaedia whose only purpose is to provide extremely comprehensive coverage of bird species, and they would never publish an account that includes this much information on the status of a species in a tiny part of its worldwide range. Nearly every “charismatic” species with small populations in a Western European country will have this much country specific conservation information, doesn’t justify having an article on it. AryKun (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work you do on the encyclopedia and don't mean to disparage that in the slightest. Honest question, though, from a policy perspective, why should we delete this? This isn't adding overly detailed information to the more general article of Common crane. It's relatively well referenced, and the topic itself meets GNG based on sources already in the article. —siroχo 19:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how all conservation publications work; most organisms that are well-studied and of conservation concern in a country will have plenty of sources discussing the history of their conservation in that country. Using that standard, we should have an article for wood storks in Florida. AryKun (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies for the "strongest possible keep" wording which I've chosen to remove above in place of a standard keep. I realize now that came across as overly aggressive, which I did not intend. Apologies specifically to those who felt put upon, that was not fair of me. Here's a source assessment table for the topic of "Cranes in Great Britain". There are other sources available that I haven't evaluated in full, but I think this makes more than a sufficient case for the article as it stands.—siroχo 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive reasoning provided by siroχo especially the source assessment table as well as WP:NOTPAPER rationale. WilsonP NYC (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Siroxo

Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
BBC[12] Yes Yes Yes 290+ words dedicated to the topic of cranes in multiple places in Great Britain ✔ Yes
British Birds "The occurrence and recolonisation of common cranes in Scotland" [13] Yes Yes [14] Yes journal article that covers history and conservation in part of Great Britain ✔ Yes
British Birds, "Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2009" Yes Yes Yes Multiple articles over multiple years each seems to have 100+ words specifically on crane conservation focused on Great Britain. There is other relevant coverage with these as well. We'll count the set as one source ✔ Yes
Yorkshire Post[15] Yes Yes Yes 438+ words of the article entirely dedicated to cranes in Great Britain including both history and conservation efforts ✔ Yes
Birding World "The Cranes of Broadland" Yes ? Seems reliable based on topic, but unsure for this out of print magazine ? Seems very likely, multi-page article, title related topic of cranes in region of Great Britain, publication dedicated to birdwatching in Great Britain ? Unknown
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}}.
My point (and that of AryKun above) is not that the topic is not "notable" - obviously there is enough coverage to write a certain amount about it, and in consequence to meet the letter of GNG - but that there is no benefit in presenting this separately from the main article, and that localized detail often is excessive for our purposes. Look at Sandhill_crane#Mainland_North_America - that is more information than is contained in the entire article under discussion here, comfortably contained in the species article in context. There is no benefit in making the reader chase around multiple articles just for the fun of having those. It's not always about notability, but often about practicalities of presentation. As suggested above, for most well-studied bird species with wide distribution it would be trivial, and unproductive, to break out regional sub-articles. I could pop out "Mallard in Arkansas" within a day or so, because I have twenty field studies sitting right here that happen to have been done in that region, but the added localized detail would be of minimal encyclopedic benefit. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to write a quality article about Mallards in Arkansas, I think that would be fine. If someone else writes it and it's not of interest to you, that's also fine. This pattern is not uncommon across Wikipedia, we have the entire WP:SS guideline and related stuff for this. I'm not at all opposed to having a section in Common crane about Common cranes in Great Britain, perhaps with a {{main article}} section hatnote, if appropriate. My main objection is the idea that we start with this article that contains information that may be of interest to some readers, but isn't of interest to some editors in this afd discussion, then we do a merge to Common crane, and then we lose much of that information. I do agree with you that a full merge isn't appropriate. It mixes topics and also has UNDUE information for the common crane article. The solution that can satisfy both desires here is to leave this article for the people who desire this level of detail, and to include a summary in Common crane for people interested in that. —siroχo 16:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The merge doesn't work. The List_of_birds_of_Great_Britain is what it says, a list, with almost no information on any of the birds in it (and rightly so; it would become unmanageable if it did). So we can't merge information there. The article on the Common crane would be unbalanced by a great splodge of information about the crane in Great Britain (AryKun is correct). But the information here is sourced, totally relevant to the bird in the UK, and therefore perfectly encyclopaedic. It is only natural that we have a list of birds in the UK branching out into information on each bird's status in the UK (and we can happily do the same for other countries too; there's no special UK status about this). Much interesting and sourced information would be needlessly lost if we lost this article. Elemimele (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally no specialist encyclopedia ever covered this level of detail for cosmopolitan species. If we're just going to include every single subject that has three journal papers that focus on it as a separate article, we might as well start Ixodid tick parasitism of giant anteaters and Effect of Andean topography on speciation in Scytalopus tapaculos. Just because something could be covered at article level doesn't mean that it's a good idea. AryKun (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, if unmanageable is a criterion, having literally several tens of thousands of articles on overly specific "Bird in place" articles is definitely very unmanageable (and we can create that many of these articles based on this logic). AryKun (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those editors advocating at least a partial Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kalal[edit]

Deepak Kalal (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 is famous for marrying Bollywood actress Rakhi Sawant and for his video 'Modiji, main aapko pappi dunga.Fails to meet WP:GNG and falls under the scope of WP:BLP1E. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Firstly, as nominator mentioned, Deepak Kalal falls under WP:BLP1E, signifying that his biography predominantly revolves around a single significant event. You cited his fame for marrying Bollywood actress Rakhi Sawant and for his video titled 'Modiji, main aapko pappi dunga,' which, interestingly, highlights his presence in two distinct events. This raises a question about the validity of the nomination. Nevertheless, I am open to engaging in a discussion to uphold Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

It's worth noting that Deepak Kalal had achieved notability even before his association with Rakhi Sawant. He garnered attention when he was featured in news reports, such as when he was beaten up, as reported by Times of India and India.com. Additionally, he received media coverage regarding his expected participation in the TV show Bigg Boss, as highlighted here.

Multiple occasions saw Deepak Kalal featured in various news outlets, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, as well as here. These examples, among others, demonstrate a consistent presence in reliable sources, solidifying his status as a viral internet sensation. Deepak Kalal's notability unquestionably aligns with WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying Rakhi Sawant was one significant event that was covered by some gossip news sites, and 'Modiji, main aapko pappi dunga was a regular video that garnered more views than his other videos. It's important to distinguish between being famous and being notable. He was beaten by the public for his crazy acts, and I don't believe he deserves a standalone article for this. His stint on the Bigg Boss show lasted only 24 hours, during which he was covered by some daily updates and gossip media websites. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India, India Today, India.com, The Indian Express and Latestly are not gossips websites. He has been covered at different events on these reliable websites. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles from The Times of India and India.com revolve around incidents where Deepak Kalal was beaten by the public. The headlines for these articles are “Infamous YouTuber Deepak Kalal Gets Beaten Up On Cam In Gurugram” and “Deepak Kalal Again Beaten Up By The Same Metro Guy For Misbehaving,” respectively. According to WP:ICTFSOURCES, The Times of India is considered a questionable source, while India.com is regarded as unreliable. Regarding the Indian Express source, it's a brief list where Deepak Kalal is mentioned only once, and this doesn't provide SIGCOV. As for the India Today source, it's reliable and thoroughly covers the topic (SIGCOV). However, it's essential to understand that meeting the GNG requires more than three sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Deepak Kalal in Reliable Sources
Article Website Reliability Remarks
"Who is Deepak Kalal, the guy Rakhi Sawant is marrying?" India Today checkY Coverage in 2018
"Meet Deepak Kalal, a Pune man who is a social media star in Kashmir" India Today checkY Coverage in 2017
"Deepak Kalal Makes Debut In Punjabi Industry" PTC Punjabi checkY Coverage in 2019
"Rakhi Sawant's Husband Ritesh Reveals Why She Did The Marriage Stint With Deepak Kalal" Women's Era checkY Coverage in 2020
"VIDEO: Rakhi Sawant's friend Deepak Kalal BEATEN LIVE in Gurgaon; Was recently seen in 'India's Got Talent 8'!" ABP News checkY Coverage in 2019
"Roll out laughing - Deepak called Virat unfaithful, Anushka as his step-daughter." ABP News checkY Separate article on Deepak Kalal by ABP News
"Deepak Kalal, Saumya Tandon, Sara Khan – Take a Look at the TV Newsmakers of the Week" Latestly checkY Reputed source
"From Deepak Kalal to Adil Durrani, here's a look at Rakhi Sawant's controversial love life and dramas" Firstpost checkY Considered reliable source
"Deepak Kalal's different articles on India TV Hindi website" India TV checkY Multiple articles covering Deepak Kalal
"Deepak Kalal in different articles by News18" News18 checkY Different articles on News18
"Shocked, Deepak Kalal demands Rs 4 cr compensation over Rakhi Sawant’s secret wedding, actress reacts in viral video" India TV checkY English article coverage on Deepak Kalal by India TV
"Deepak Kalal showed such magic in India's Got Talent, the judges folded their hands and shook their heads" NDTV checkY Coverage by NDTV, a reliable source
"Rakhi Sawant announces marriage with 'India's Got Talent 8' fame Deepak Kalal! Confirms Shah Rukh Khan, KJo's attendance" Daily News and Analysis checkY Covered by Daily News and Analysis, a reliable source

As per this evaluation, Deepak Kalal meets the notability criteria for a stand-alone article, having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This coverage spans from 2017 to the present day and encompasses various aspects of his public life, including his association with Rakhi Sawant, appearances in India's Got Talent, and more.

Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I went through all the sources in the table added by TheChunky, and anyone can verify their titles and content, which primarily revolve around gossip, updates, and rumors concerning Rakhi Sawant and Deepak Kalal's marriage.
Analysis of the sources table added by TheChunky
The first source comes from India Today and was posted by the India Today Web Desk. It doesn't have a specific author, so we can't really consider it reliable. Furthermore, this source is all about Rakhi Sawant's marriage, which falls into the WP:BLP1E category, as I pointed out during the nomination.
As for the second source, it's also from India Today, and I mentioned in my previous response that it's a reliable one.
The third source is an update from PTC Punjabi.
The fourth source is from Women's Era, and the fifth and sixth sources are sources from ABP News, with the seventh source being from Latestly. They all contain gossip about Rakhi Sawant and Deepak Kalal's marriage, so they fit under the WP:BLP1E sources category.
Next up, we have the source from Firstpost, the ninth one from India TV, and the tenth source from News18. These are tag links where Deepak Kalal was tagged, and all the articles in that tag are gossip and rumors about Rakhi Sawant's marriage.
The eleventh source is from India TV, and it is also a gossip and update about Rakhi Sawant and Deepak Kalal.
The twelfth source from NDTV is a video update.
Finally, the last source, from DNA, is also gossip or an update about Rakhi Sawant and Deepak Kalal's marriage.

Almost all the sources are about the marriage of Rakhi Sawant and Deepak Kalal, as I mentioned in the nomination. Deepak Kalal was in the news for marrying Rakhi Sawant, which clearly falls into the WP:BLP1E category. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The assessment by DreamRimmer is more accurate. Should also note that WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to some of the references including this and this and this to name a few. Forgot to add sig.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, making an appearance on a talent show (India's Got Talent) and pulling stunts which will obviously result in physical altercation thus making gossip news with headings such as "All you need to know about..." does not signify notability (or pass WP:RS) as the subject did not win the show and was not a runner-up. Further more, I noticed the opening statement of the subject's article says he's an actor (an occupation which comes first) but there's nothing mentioned of him portraying any role other than that of a talent show. It reads that he was featured in various popular songs and albums of which are not listed and the only musical composition mentioned is a song titled "Next Level" which also does not appear to be notable as it does not have any certificate. As far as my research goes, the subject does not have any award nor nomination listed under his name to back his career as either actor, content creator nor musician, he made news for his marriage and making public appearance(s) with his companion. shelovesneo (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Very different assessment of sources, could use a few more days consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Love (Sia song)[edit]

Gimme Love (Sia song) (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)

Unreleased song. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Draft was rejected by me at AFC, but user moved it into main article space regardless. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My decision is of course now Keep as the song is out and has received notable coverage. Thanks for pinging. I'd have assumed this was closed down by now!! — Peterpie123rww (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's coming out tomorrow, let's see what the press says about it. TOOSOON for one day I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Celtic neopaganism. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic reconstructionism[edit]

Celtic reconstructionism (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)

Besides the massive COI issues involved in the creation of this article, the sources simply don't support Celtic reconstructionism paganism as a real thing attested to by secondary sources. Self-claimed druids and pagans' self-published works don't count, and stuff that could potentially be secondary doesn't seem to directly refer to Celtic reconstructionist paganism as a thing; beyond that, the sources used are sometimes done in blatant contradiction to what they say. For instance: the passage Language study and preservation, and participation in other cultural activities such as Celtic music, dance and martial arts forms, are seen as a core part of the tradition.[6][19] Participation in the living Celtic cultures[20][21] – the cultures that exist in the "areas in which Celtic languages are actually spoken and in which Celtic traditions have been most faithfully handed down to the present day"[22] – is a vital part of their cultural work and spiritual practice. references Gaelic Nova Scotia: An Economic, Cultural, and Social Impact Study, but the quote supplied argues the exact opposite of the text—that the druid groups have little connection to actual Celtic traditions, language, or culture. I suppose you can argue that the article is saying that's just druids, not Celtic reconstructionism, but the problem is then that once again the rest is referenced to the same bad source. There's nothing that can be salvaged from this article; if it's a notable thing it has to be built ground-up on reliable secondary sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty of independent sources and I've already removed the use of the self-published Lulu.com book as a source. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mind pointing out which independent sources significantly cover this topic? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, here's two books from Princeton and Cambridge UPs that discuss the topic. Skyerise (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Williams, M. (2018). Ireland's Immortals: A History of the Gods of Irish Myth. Princeton University Press.
    • David J. Collins. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West: From Antiquity to the Present. (2018). Cambridge University Press.
    I don't have full text access to Collins 2018, but it along with Williams appear to be glancing mentions not SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales. 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete As as far as I can tell it's all based on WP:PRIMARY - Celtic Reconstructionists writing about their religion. I don't think the SELFPUB has all been removed, but I can't see that there is any genuine "third party" RS in there. I note the above comment that there are a couple of "proper" sources on this - may be they do address this topic but they are not cited in the article. One of the 2 main authors of this article is inteviewed here. In the interview she says I am one of the people to blame for the Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan (CR) tradition and community...In addition to being involved in CR since the proto-CR period in the '80s, I am a co-author of our tradition's two defining documents. The article has been constructed by her and her friends to promote their views. Maybe it's a legitimate topic - at best it's a candidate for WP:TNT. DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: For what it's worth, I removed two paragraphs based mostly or entirely on NicDhana's and others articles in the pagan zine Harvest. One para promoted NicDhana as the originator of the term and the other made she and her Harvest buddies the definitive view. Ima gonna quit for now cause I hate wasting more effort if its justa gonna be deleted. But I think it's a real thing and notable enough to keep, and entirely possible to remove further primary sources and add material from better sources. Skyerise (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, this is not a topic I have much/any prior knowledge...and I'm trying to avoid being too prejudiced by some of the dreadful editing and behaviour I've seen having spent quite a lot of time going though the edit history of that article and its talk pages. But looking at google results I'm only turning up cranky website forums and a very small number of books written by the group's (the very small group's) advocates. David Fuchs says the 2 "proper" sources you referenced don't have SIGCOV. I'm not sure where else to go with this. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you may be right. It's quite possible no source would even have mentioned it had there not been this Wikipedia article, so it may be a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Skyerise (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course no source would've ever mentioned it if not for the article, but that's also true of Genie (feral child) and Tarrare, which are both incontrovertibly notable and both have ~100% of their 21st-century coverage because of Wikipedia. It's a gravity well. The corollary is that it's possible an article that didn't have enough sources, then existed for fifteen years, could've acquired sources for it. (I'm not sure I'd say that happened here given what Ireland's Immortals cites, but I'd be shocked if it's never happened, even if you don't count the "became notable from an AfD"-type cases.) Vaticidalprophet 19:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I land around weak keep, but it's tricky and might be better covered as not-a-standalone-article. I'd not give the Cambridge History as a fantastic source -- it's a bit of a passing mention -- but Ireland's Immortals is legit just-barely-sigcov, and cites The Apple Branch: A Path to Celtic Ritual as definitive, which, eh, I don't know if everyone would say that :) but does make it 'good enough for Wikipedia', even if I imagine some Reconstructionists might quibble with the idea it's any sort of definitive take on their practice, and it's certainly a highly in-depth source on something it calls Celtic Reconstructionism. Maybe that's enough. The irony of it all is, as well as those two I also own the book this whole debate is about, and put serious thought a while back to doing work on this article as part of a general "huh, what if I GTed the Celtic paganism suite" playing-around-with-ideas, but after things on a certain other article got weird I decided that might not be the wisest of ideas at this junction. Vaticidalprophet 18:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per David Fuchs, Collins (2018) and Williams (2018) only have passing mentions and are not significant coverage. Williams is the longer, in fact, with Collins merely mentioning Celtic Reconstructionism in a single sentence in a larger paragraph on page 653 that is generally about Reconstructionism. Incidentally we have Polytheistic reconstructionism and Collins might be a source for that, but even then, it is just a paragraph. In any case, whatever could be said about this from reliable secondary sources (and there is not much), this is not it. This article needs WP:TNT per DeCausa. I would suggest that the very little that could be written from suitable sources would be better focussed on a general article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Polytheistic reconstructionism - I've struck my keep !vote above and suggest that whatever can be salvaged be merged to the article Sirfurboy brought up. Skyerise (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there are reliable sources for this and do not believe that thorough attempts to find them will fail. I think that a lot of existing material will need to be verified or removed - but my understanding of the deletion policy is that is preferable to removing a valid topic. I do not believe that Polytheistic reconstructionism is a good merge target, as there are no other specific types of reconstructionism currently included as part of that article. Druidry (modern) might be a potential merge target due to overlaps - but I think that would involve conflating related-but-not-the-same things. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* Fascinating. Last I saw the article, it had substantial WP:RS and WP:V sources and citations. I wonder what happened to them and when they were stripped out? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Mark Ironie (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
    Can you identify what these "substantial WP:RS" are? As far as I can see, the main source to come out is the so-called "CR FAQ" which was cited 15 times. It was WP:SELFPUB - both on the net and via "River House Publishing". DeCausa (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly. I think this version, directly before User:Skyerise essentially gutted the article. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that anyone would be surprised that that is your opinion. However, you have said that "substantial WP:RS" have been stripped out and haven't answered the question of what those were. The main change of significance I can see results from the removal of 15 citations to a WP:SELFPUB source. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is written well enough (in terms of language) and at least doesn't seem especially promotional, even if it was written by someone with a conflict of interest. Completely deleting it and starting over sounds extreme given it appears participants here have only looked at the article's current sources and haven't yet had the chance to look to see if other sources exist and whether they affirm enough of what the article says to warrant the effort of reviewing/replacing the sources. Some participants have expressed an interest in reviewing or improving the article, so at the very least it's surely worth trying to look for some new sources before considering deletion.
    Without at least checking for other sources, I don't think it's reasonable to say that absolutely none of this article is worth keeping in any form (whether it's kept and pruned, or merged elsewhere). It may well be the case that secondary sources exist and say much of the same. However, if an effort is made and still no decent sources can be found then this becomes a case of failing the general notability guideline and the appropriate action is clearer. – Scyrme (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking briefly myself, I found: Lewis, James R. (2009). "Celts, druids and the invention of tradition". In Pizza, Murphy; Lewis, James (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Paganism. Leiden: Brill. pp. 479–496. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004163737.i-650.135. ISBN 978-90-474-4235-6.
    It takes a very critical view of the topic and is more than just a passing mention. However, it appears to take a much broader and more inclusive view of what "Celtic reconstructionism" means than is presented in this article. Like this article, it refers to neo-druids, Isaac Bonewits, and Ár nDraíocht Féin but otherwise there's not much overlap, though it does appear to imply a distinction between reconstructionism and neo-druidry: "Advocates of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism tend to embrace the same kind of paradoxical attitude we noted among contemporary neo-Druids."
    While searching, most of what I saw that did appear to discuss "Celtic reconstructionism" in the same way this article does also appeared to be involved in some way, being authored by insiders/participants/practitioners such as Kathryn NicDhàna, Morgan Daimler, and Aedh Rua.
    The exception to that is Ireland's Immortals, but looking at it myself, the content about reconstructionism in it seems scant consisting of a summary paragraph. Notably, it includes this footnote: Published material on the subject of Celtic Reconstructionism is limited, as most discussion tends to be online; but see A. Kondratiev, The Apple Branch: A Path to Celtic Ritual (San Francisco, CA, 1998). Alexei Kondratiev is evidently himself a neopagan.
    I encourage others to look for themselves. – Scyrme (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appriciate the review and summary. I am confused why an author being Neopagan is considered relevant. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be relevant if he is writing as a participant/practitioner rather than as an observer. – Scyrme (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY seems like it would allow it if he were a participant/practitioner purely as a record of facts, but not for analysis. If we're looking for observer consideration we'd need to read it. Without being able to do that how it's published (known vanity/slush publishing vs "respectable" or even academic) and treated by other sources is probably a better sign than author religion. I just feel really sketchy about making hay out of authors' religions, whatever they are. Darker Dreams (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is WP:PRIMARY relevant? I thought the concern was about independent secondary sources. It seemed like a detail that might be relevant for anyone who does what I suggested: to go look for such sources. Practitioners are unlikely to be a helpful lead. Probably better to look somewhere else. If you don't agree, then you can look into The Apple Branch if you want. – Scyrme (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scyrme, thanks very much for this look at the sources. I had a look at what Lewis (2009) says, and you describe it well as a very critical look at the topic, but I am not sure if it is more than a passing mention of this page topic, because this page is about a particular approach to celtic paganism, but Lewis is talking about all approaches. All Druidism is reconstructed (although some of the adherents of some forms will debate that). So when Lewis is talking about the reconstruction he is not necessarily focussing on a thing called CR as a particular approach, but as what all of these are doing. However, despite that doubt, I think we could perhaps assume that the discussion on page 487 is specifically about a primary topic of Celtic reconstructionism, but if that is one source addressing the notability, it suggests the article that we have here is not the article that is supported by the sources. That source, as you point out, is very critical, both on the reconstruction (with its assumptions and borrowings), and also on the appropriation of the term "Celtic". That should be what the article is about. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Celtic neopaganism, where the term is covered, with the risk of getting endless discussions about that article's title. I oppose merging it with polytheistic reconstructionism, which is a mess of an article and doesn't reflect the reliable sources on the subject. The main source about polytheistic reconstructionism is five pages by Michael Strmiska in the book Modern Paganism in World Cultures, where it is described as a continuum together with eclectic paganism, not as something that really exists on its own, in pure form. The other sources that exist are mainly papers about individual neopagan organisations, where the authors summarise Strmiska's description of the continuum and then go on to explain why it's not really a useful terminology when discussing the groups in question. The term can exist within the rhetoric of certain groups, but the actually existing neopagan practises are neither reconstructionist nor eclectic in the way those words are used here. Ffranc (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSources now present in the article are sufficient to establish that the topic has been discussed in scholarly sources, albeit largely in contrast to eclectic paganism.. I saw no mention of other than the US, so I added a mention in an article by Jenny Blain. More of the increasing body of academic work on neo-paganism, including pagan theology, could usefully be brought to bear to update what Bonewits published in 2006. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Changed to Merge (redirect with rewriting of section at target) to Celtic neopaganism; see below. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TNT with no prejudice to its recreation by users in good standing and with a solid reputation for sourcing. SN54129 12:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per TNT - after reading about attempts to find SIGCOV, I may be wrong about the subject's notability. In any case, completely removing the COI sources would pretty much leave nothing but Bonewitz, and he's not really an uninvolved source. Skyerise (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Updated to strong. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT given the massive WP:COI issues. If independent SIGCOV can be found, let other editors build it. starship.paint (RUN) 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while I appreciate the work Yngvadottir has done on the article, I've also been following discussions elsewhere and am sympathetic to the concerns about safety arising due to the identification of old and new usernames. Yet since that connection is easily discernible (since the accounts were simply renamed) from their activity on this article, and this article is most likely the reason any external threats arose in the first place, I think it is best to protect those editors by deleting the article and starting over, rather than leaving that edit history for any external parties to peruse, providing them with all the information necessary to determine the current usernames of those parties. Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now given the article a couple of stiff edits, adding several new sources and broadening the focus based on what I found. Discussion has been happening on the talk page, most recently over whether to include the CR FAQ (i'd readded it). I'm tempted to ping those who advocated TNT above, but have decided not to. I disagree with Skyerise's above suggestion: IMO we'd be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we deleted this article for any reason other than that we decide there should not be an article on this topic; and that's why I just spent a lot of time rewriting it, hoping to clearly demonstrate notability. Any new article would be some sort of re-creation; unless someone else wants to WP:HEY it in a different manner from my recasting, and I followed the sources I found. Revision-deletion of editors' names in the history and on the talk page and its history would be radical but would achieve the same concealment. (And I hereby give permission for redaction of my previous sentence for further concealment.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir: thank you for all your work on the article. It's significantly better written than before, more encyclopedic and interesting to the general reader and better sourced, with the COI issue now removed. I'm on the verge of switching to Keep. However, I'm still hovering on notability. The previous concern was that the original creators were writing about their own (what appeared to be) insignificantly small group, using their own and their friends' publications as sources bolstered by WP:SYNTHing in mainstream sources discussing neo-paganism and Celtic religion generally. It would help if you could identify which references are the good quality SIGCOV sources now in the article. I started to look for them in the Practices section but accessing them wasn't straight forward. I did look at the current cite 11 (Bittarello) and that seems to be talking about neo-pagans generally. Cite 12 (McColman) is an e-edition so I had trouble finding the cited page - but couldn't see a specific reference to "Celtic reconstructionists" in its vicinity. Cite 13 (Davey) appears to talk about "some pagans embrace the idea of a pan-European Celtic culture". At that point, I thought it might be quicker to just ask you the question! DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like DeCausa, I would like to thank you for your efforts here, and if the article can be shown to be notable, WP:HEY could apply just as much as WP:TNT is a valid argument here. But I also remain sceptical about the notability of the subject for a page. It may be down to sourcing, but we need to look at the sources. A good example of the issue is the clause in the opening sentence: emphasizing historical accuracy over eclecticism by which we assert, in wiki-voice, that CR emphasises historical accuracy and, by extension, other forms do not. It is in the lead, so I looked for support in the main, and found:

    During the 1980s, some of these reacted against the eclecticism and the focus on the "spirit" of the ancient religions in favor of "reconstructing what can be known from the extant historical record".

    Sourced to:
    Only that title is a five volume set. The ISBN number resolves to volume 5, which makes sense as that volume is on American traditions. Yet page 178 is talking about Scientology. I checked volume 1 in case it was referring to that - being as no volume number is given - but there page 178 is about Aum Shinrikyo. So then I searched all volumes for the quote, and then, based on the fact that the OCR on open library can sometimes be iffy, I just searched on the word "extant". I did not find that quotation, nor any mention of CR as a thing.
    Now, what can we make of that? It seems to me that the primary claim that CR is a thing, distinct enough from other druidism and neo-pagan groups to merit a page in its own right remains very much the principle point in doubt here. If CR distinguishes itself at all, it is in this approach. But although it is clear that its adherents believe that they are doing things differently, what we don't have, at this time, is any evidence that anyone else thinks that. To be notable, sources must be independent, and for good reason. Can you bring any sources to bear that we can look at to establish this notability? Thanks once again for your efforts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotation is actually in vol.iii, Metaphysical, New Age, and Neopagan Movements, from the chapter “Wicca, Witchcraft, and Modern Paganism” by Douglas E. Cowan, pp.176–199. Providing more of it for context: “An introductory essay such as this cannot hope to do justice to the vast panoply of emergent religious belief and practice that constitutes modern Paganism: […] New Druids and Celtic Reconstructionists—the former interested in revitalizing the spirit of what they believe was the religious practice of pre-Roman Britain, the latter only in reconstructing what can be known from the extant historical record; […]” where ND & CR are listed together as one of six broad types. While it does support the latter part of the sentence, it says nothing about the time period (for any of the listed groups) and does not imply that CR developed as a reaction to either ND specifically or eclecticism in general.—Odysseus1479 21:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Odysseus1479, that saved me a lot of frustration since it turns out the Internet Archive won't let me see that book. I'm going to run through the more academic sources in the article here in response to DeCausa's query, but the Practices section isn't the best place to look, since it has to be largely sourced from practitioner accounts (which is the main reason I have just reverted JoelleJay's removal of both Green Triangle interviews; let us recognize that a subset of a kind of paganism is by definition a "fringey" topic!) In any case, this AfD will decide on whether it's worth going into that level of detail at all. There's been a little confusion arising out of the way the article was originally written and expanded, by members of one group. In rewriting the article I've sought to demonstrate that Celtic reconstructionism is not solely a US thing, let alone just a single group. (Although the CR FAQ was written collaboratively by many people on LiveJournal, and participants there may not have been aware of others out of their orbit, just as some Celtic reconstructionists have said they only realized that's what they had been doing when they ran across references to the FAQ.)
    That said, other than Bonewits, the more scholarly sources are scattered and shallow. None of them except Bonewits can be said to focus on describing Celtic reconstructionism. Two (Galtsin and Vencálek) are cited just for its existence in Russia and the Czech Republic, respectively. Two have a different focus but characterize Celtic reconstructionism and locate it within neopaganism in the US: McCoy with respect to how it coalesced online as a movement, but the article is about music, Harris, Panzica, Trotter within a nice overview of types of paganism, but the article is about counseling pagans; and the cited fact, its being the third largest strand of reconstructionism in the US, I now see is cited to McColman, Carl. The complete idiot’s guide to Paganism. Indianapolis: Alpha Books, 2002—so it may be out of date or unreliable. (Voices From the Pagan Census, 2003, does not appear to have asked about reconstructionism.)
    The academic discussion about reconstructionist paganism is overwhelmingly about Asatru/heathenism. Partly because of the concern about ethnocentrism / white power. This is particularly true of the conference volume Paganism and Its Discontents: Enduring Problems of Racialized Identity; the Strmiska citation is to the keynote address there, where he defines reconstructionist paganism as ethnic: "The first, more open-ended form of Paganism has been variously labeled by me and others as eclectic or universalist, and the second, more consciously restricted form as reconstructionist and ethnic." (p. 8); he goes on to take reconstructionists to task as "probably much more strict about religious orthodoxy and orthopraxy than their medieval or ancient forebears ever were" (p. 18) and ends by advocating admixture of practices / concepts from other cultures to alleviate the risk of racism. The contrast between reconstructionism and eclecticism is one of two focuses in academic mentions of Celtic reconstructionism. Jenny Blain, whose focus is heathenry, provides the best cites on the nature of reconstructionism and on the fact that practitioners vary in strictness: the second Blain citation, from that book: "Today's practitioners point out that they are attempting to reach what they consider the centrally important points of religion ... and work with this to create something that 'works' within today's environment. The extents to which they base practice on 'evidence' (from literature or archaeology) vary considerably." The first Blain citation (Modern Paganism in World Cultures): "Basically, reconstructionists work from the principle that documents or artifacts from the past hold clues [to] practices and worldviews and relationships [that] can be used or adopted meaningfully within today's world. Reconstruction of this sort is different from reenactment ..." Both citations of Blain, who is British, also attest to Celtic reconstructionism in the UK—second Blain citation, following paragraph: "The reconstructionist groups I've engaged with are mostly Heathen, with some input from Celtic and Roman reconstructionists."; 1st Blain citation, also following paragraph: "In Britain, such reconstructionists include, in addition to Heathens, people following various Celtic or British, Roman and Greek, Eastern European, or other paths for which evidence can be found, including some Druids." But both of her articles are about heathenry. (There's also a good definition of reconstructionism in Blain's article in Handbook of Contemporary Paganism, pp. 413–14; I was able to download the book off one of those copyright-defying sites.)
    The other focus of academic mentions of Celtic reconstructionism is the romanticization / cultural appropriation issues arising from "elective affinity" (a phrase used in several of the sources). Here the focus is on the Celtic rather than the reconstructionism; for example Bowman, and also Lewis, in the Handbook of Contemporary Paganism but Lewis' article, as Scyrme notes above, is really talking about Celtic paganism as a whole. The passage reads: "Thus, in addition to adopting ideas and practices from contemporary indigenous groups, attempts to reconstruct ancient Celtic spirituality also sometimes draw on materials from other ancient Pagan religions. [para break] A more serious issue with contemporary Celtic reconstructionism is that making Celtic identity a matter of 'elective affinity' is ethically problematic because of the existence of contemporary Celtic peoples." Either something was omitted here in the editing process or the author equates "reconstructing Celtic spirituality" with "Celtic reconstructionism". The quotation that follows is from an essay by Ann-Marie Gallagher, "Weaving a Tangled Web? Pagan Ethics and Issues of History, 'Race' and Ethnicity in Pagan Identity", p. 580 in the same book, where the section header is "What does this Fine Disregard for Cultural and Historical Specificity Signify?"
    So there is not much depth here, and the general tendency is to cite it in contrast to other things. Also, since non-reconstructionist Celtic-focused forms of paganism are vastly more prevalent, and Celtic reconstructionism does not appear to have produced many scholars of its own (unlike heathenry, exacerbating the imbalance in essay collections), I'm having second thoughts as to keeping the article versus redirecting it to a better written and referenced section within Celtic neopaganism. The gutting of OWNSOURCE sources that has continued while I was working on this has tipped me over; we shouldn't have an article on a religious denomination that removes sources about what adherents believe and do simply and solely because they're hosted on their own websites. So I'm changing my bolded position above and will let others use my work or not based on the consensus reached here. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to respond to the ping -- the main reason I removed Green Triangle was because it's an SPS by non-experts. Going through various archived versions of the site, I couldn't find any mention of editorial policy (let alone by people with any relevant qualifications). Practitioner accounts should really be limited to those which are published in RS, otherwise we are emphasizing facets that may not be accurate or relevant to the system (and with such a long, open-ended, personal interview I think it would be very difficult to identify salient points without engaging in OR). JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Celtic neopaganism, per above discussion.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. LizRead! Talk! 04:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou True Light Middle School[edit]


Guangzhou True Light Middle 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)
Unsourced since 2021, appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL. I could only find one example of WP:SIGCOV, a short article about learning conditions in the Hong Kong Free Press. As always with these articles, foreign language sources may exist but I have no way to find, access, or verify those. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth For your information, the article from the Hong Kong Free Press is about the True Light Middle School in Kowloon (a place in Hong Kong), not Guangzhou (capital city of Guangdong, China). Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Mandarin speaker & Cantonese reader here. I looked into the Chinese sources and there is just routine coverage through some not RS sites. The zh-wiki article has eight sources. Only some of them satisfy en-wiki:
●增学位、开新校、换校长…… 这个开学广州变化大. 南方网. 2017-08-31 [2023-07-16]. ︵原始内容存档于2023-07-16︶ –通过央广网. This article covers several schools, not just True Light alone;
●朱汉斌. 广州市真光学校举行创校145周年文化展示活动. 科学网. 2017-11-12 [2023-07-16]. ︵原始内容存档于2023-07-16︶. This article satisfies RS. Significant coverage of the school celebrating its 145th anniversary. link to the article via web archive
●蒋隽. 今年广州“小升初”有四大变化 学位房还香吗？. 羊城晚报. 2022-08-30 [2023-07-16]. ︵原始内容存档于2022-09-01︶. Not sigcov. Article talks about school allocation with respect to housing.
●马思泳. 深化集团化办学，广州荔湾区4所示范性高中全权管理11所初中. 羊城晚报. 2023-07-15 [2023-07-16]. ︵原始内容存档于2023-07-16︶. Not sigcov. Article talks about the administration of 11 middle schools.
●真光校史之一. 广州市真光中学. 2011-07-03 [2012-07-26]. ︵原始内容存档于2015-06-02︶. Primary source of the school's history.
●學校活動傳真. 香港真光中学︵幼稚园部︶. [2011-09-09].[永久失效链接] Curious enough, this is a primary school from Hong Kong's True Light Middle School. Likely related to our subject, but still a primary source.
●學校簡介. 九龙真光中学. [2011-09-09]. ︵原始内容存档于2011-08-21︶. Another primary source, this time from the True Light Middle School of Kow Loon.
I am taking the liberty to look at the zh-yue-wiki article. It cites three sources:

●广州‥高考生出校门遭刀捅 凶手与其父母有过节 YouTube Youtube video, cannot be taken as a source.
●广州‥高考生出校门遭刀捅 凶手与其父母有过节 腾讯视频 Video from the Tencent platform (similar to Youtube). Again, cannot be taken as a source.
●真光学子餐后又屙又呕 互聯網檔案館嘅歸檔，歸檔日期2016年2月28號，. 廣州日報 ︵2016-02-28 A3版︶ Now, this is a RS from Guangzhou Daily with significant coverage. The title reads "Students of True Light Had Diarrhea and Vomited After Meal". My goodness. link to the article via web archive
So, we have two reliable sources, both in Mandarin Chinese. However, neither of them address the history of the school (in my humble opinion, a rich history if properly referenced!). My suggestion is a weak delete in the spirit of TNT, but it makes me sad to make this decision. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After assessing the sources from User:Cunard, I am !voting keep. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

(一)Liu, Dong 刘东 (2006). "校园环境设计的实施策略——以广州市真光中学为例" [Implementation strategies of campus environment design—taking Guangzhou True Light Middle School as an example]. 重庆交通学院学报‥社会科学版 [Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Social Sciences Edition)] (in Chinese) (2). Chongqing Jiaotong University. Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [zh].
The article notes: "环境设计的实质是反映人们的生活方式和审美追求,也是社会文化的创造。优美和谐的校园环境是一所学校良好的校园文化和精神文明的一个重要标志。校园环境设计必须从学校的文化背景入手,对学校进行全方位考察,并且让师生共同参与,让文化弥散到每一个角落且突出个性,以强化校园环境的整体风格。"
 From Google Translate: "The essence of environmental design is to reflect people's lifestyle and aesthetic pursuit, and it is also the creation of social culture. A beautiful and harmonious campus environment is an important symbol of a school's good campus culture and spiritual civilization. The design of campus environment must start from the cultural background of the school, conduct a comprehensive inspection of the school, and involve teachers and students together, so that culture can permeate every corner and highlight individuality, so as to strengthen the overall style of the campus environment."
(二)Lu, Yuefei 卢岳飞 (2012). "广州市真光中学尖子生培养探索" [Exploration on cultivating top students in Guangzhou True Light Middle School]. 黄金时代‥下半月 [Golden Age: The Second Half of the Moon] (in Chinese) (2). Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [zh].
The abstract notes: "广州市真光中学近年来在毕业生培养上取得了一定成绩‥连续13年荣获广州市高中毕业班工作一等奖‥5次进入广州市高中毕业班工作一等奖10强行列‥2005年位居全市第10名，2008年第9名，2009年第8名，2010年第6名，2011年第3名。卢岳飞老师是主抓真光中学高三毕业班和全校德育工作的主任，本刊特约卢主任来给我们谈谈他们在教学方面的一些探索。"
 From Google Translate: "Guangzhou True Light Middle School has achieved certain results in graduate training in recent years: it has won the first prize for Guangzhou high school graduation class work for 13 consecutive years; it has entered the top 10 for the first prize for Guangzhou high school graduation class work 5 times: in 2005 Ranked 10th in the city, 9th in 2008, 8th in 2009, 6th in 2010, and 3rd in 2011. Teacher Lu Yuefei is the director in charge of the graduating class of True Light Middle School and the moral education work of the whole school. This magazine specially invited Director Lu to talk to us about some of their explorations in teaching."
(三)Guo, Yaowei 郭耀媄; Hu, Wenzhong 胡文中 (2006). "广州市真光中学" [Guangzhou True Light Middle School]. 羊城今古 [Yangcheng Modern and Ancient] (in Chinese) (2). Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [zh].
The abstract notes: "广州市真光中学由美国传教士那夏理︵1844～1924︶在1872年︵清同治十一年︶6月创办．原址初设在广州沙基金利埠︵现六二三路容安街︶．初名真光书院。现址在荔湾区白鹤洞培真路17号．"
 From Google Translate: "Guangzhou True Light Middle School was founded by the American missionary Na Xia Li (1844-1924) in June 1872 (the eleventh year of Tongzhi in the Qing Dynasty). The original location was originally located in Guangzhou Shaji Libu (now Rong'an Street, 623rd Road). It was originally named Zhenguang Academy. The current address is No. 17, Peizhen Road, Baihedong, Liwan District."
(四)Wu, Zhonghui 吴中辉 (2007). "特色 文化 理念 在竞争中铸造教育品牌——广东省广州市真光中学校长荀万祥访谈" [Features, Culture, Concepts, Forging Educational Brands in Competition - Interview with Xun Wanxiang, Principal of Guangzhou True Light Middle School, Guangdong Province]. 现代教育科学‥中学校长 [Modern Education Science (Middle School Headmaster)] (in Chinese) (1). Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [zh].
The abstract notes: "古木参天,绿草如茵;鸟语花香,书声朗朗。清雅的校园如同一幅颇具岭南园林风格的画卷,绘出一片求学的乐土。无论何时来到广州市真光中学,这种感受总是如影随形。这座坐落在广州珠江河畔、白鹤洞山顶的著名学府,前身是始创于1872年的真光书院,迄今已有134年的历史,是岭南办学最早的学校之一。"
 From Google Translate: "The ancient trees are towering, the grass is green; the birds are singing and the flowers are fragrant, and the books are reading loudly. The elegant campus is like a picture scroll with a Lingnan garden style, painting a paradise for studying. Whenever I come to Guangzhou True Light Middle School, this feeling always follows me. This famous school located on the bank of the Pearl River in Guangzhou and on the top of Baihedong Mountain was formerly known as Zhenguang Academy, which was founded in 1872. It has a history of 134 years and is one of the earliest schools in Lingnan."
(五)"荔湾示范性高中招生3428人" [Liwan Model High School enrolls 3,428 students]. 新快报 [Xin Kuai Bao] (in Chinese). 2022-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-09-10. Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via Sina Corporation.
The article notes: "学校简介‥是岭南办学最早的学校之一，现为广东省首批国家级示范性普通高中、首批广东省教学水平优秀学校、首批广东省德育示范校。... 招生计划‥2022年学校两个校区招生，分三个批次，其中，校本部招生共计815人，包括特长生57人，"
 From Google Translate: "School introduction: It is one of the earliest schools in Lingnan. It is now one of the first batch of national-level demonstration ordinary high schools in Guangdong Province, the first batch of Guangdong Province excellent teaching schools, and the first batch of Guangdong Province moral education demonstration schools. ... Enrollment plan: In 2022, the school will enroll students in two campuses, divided into three batches. Among them, the school’s main campus will enroll a total of 815 students, including 57 students with special talents."
(六)Zhu, Hanbin 朱汉斌 (2017-11-12). "广州市真光学校举行创校145周年文化展示活动" [Guangzhou Zhenguang School held a cultural display event for the 145th anniversary of the founding of the school] (in Chinese). ScienceNet.cn. Archived from the original on 2023-09-10. Retrieved 2023-09-10.
The article notes: "据了解，广州市真光学校创建于1872年，前身是美国人那夏理女士创办的“真光书院”。2017年8月，原广州市长堤真光中学和广州市真光小学合并，正式成立广州市真光学校，开始九年一贯制的教育探索，标志着学校发展进入了一个崭新的历史阶段。"
 From Google Translate: "It is understood that Guangzhou True Light School was founded in 1872. Its predecessor was the "True Light Academy" founded by the American Ms. Na Xia Li. In August 2017, the former Guangzhou Changdi Zhenguang Middle School and Guangzhou Zhenguang Primary School merged to form Guangzhou Zhenguang School, which began the exploration of a nine-year consistent education, marking that the school's development has entered a new historical stage."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guangzhou True Light Middle School (simplified Chinese: 广州市真光中学; traditional Chinese: 廣州市真光中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great! #1, #2, #3, #6 looks awesome. #4 looks like an interview with the head of school–might be a primary source, but that's just a small issue. I wouldn't take #5 as sigcov because it mentions a bunch of other schools, as seen from its very first sentence:
今年荔湾区广州市示范性高中，广州市第一中学(本部)、广州市第四中学、广州市真光中学︵校本部、汾水校区︶、广州市南海中学、广州市西关外国语学校招收高一新生，招生计划合计3428人。
I think the "keep" conclusion is sound. Good job, @Cunard, for going the extra mile. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time to assess sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead! Talk! 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Legendary Moments[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Toyota Legendary Moments (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)

Series of television advertisements from the late 2000s to early 2010s which are largely unsourced and fail notability per WP:GNG; a cursory Google search reveals links only to YouTube and Facebook videos from the advertiser themselves, as well as press releases submitted to various advertising websites by the producing agency. Gibbsyspin 09:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete search I conducted would indicate it lacks WP:GNG with most results being to social media postings containing the adverts themselves. The very few news newspaper articles that do reference the subject matter I found, only do so in passing in reference to discussions about other things. Additionally this reads as advertising. This has already been deleted four times. TarnishedPathtalk 22:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete discarding all the social media fluff, Newsbank actually brings up quite a few decent-length news reports on the campaign – there's a strong case for GNG here. However, there seems to be indications that Toyota, though perhaps not going as far to write the articles themselves, has had a hand in bringing them about. For example, one author in the Herald Sun mentions basing their coverage on a "sneak peek", presumably orchestrated by Toyota itself.
If this were a non-commercial subject I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but there seems to be too much self-promotion poisoning the waters here to be confident the subject genuinely meets our notability standards. – Teratix ₵ 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Method[edit]

Twin Method (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)

Absolutely no notability for this numetal group from the UK. No chart placements, no enduring impact, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BAND, WP:GNG. Tagged since June 2020 it now needs to go. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move to draft‎. The consensus was that this is not an appropriate subject for an article yet, but since it is quite certain to be one in the future, having the draft available makes sense for when that time comes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection[edit]

2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection (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)

Yes Trump the nominee will pick a running mate. No, we don't know who it will be. The speculation as to who will be picked is more WP:CRYSTAL and will be of next to no interest once the selection is made. Another case of sourcing is not notability in action. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but not forever the contents of this article don't fit in any of the existing 2024 election articles, until we get to the point of the primaries where it is relevant, I'd say we keep this article, and then merge them when the time is right. Scu ba (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't think so. Notability is supposed to be forever; therefore, if it be lost, it follows it was never really there to begin with. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Candidates and nominees, whether they want to win or have a nice cabinet spot, in America are notable by default for the most part. This especially applies to the 2nd in line to the leadership of the free world as we all put it. Faits1789 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
!vote revised after reading subsequent comments of other editors. Sal2100 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not "useful information" here. All of the speculative suggestions are just that, speculative and unencyclopedic, and the one line of polling is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends how informed a person is as to whether there is useful information here. I had no idea about the 12th amendment until reading the article, I was hoping for a Trump/DeSantis ticket but I now know that would be problematic.
I disagree with the term 'speculative suggestions' too. When a candidate such as Trump says he is considering X, Y or Z, he is giving his informed provisional list not having a guess, which is what the media do. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see why the speculation in these articles is any different from the speculation in articles used as citations for potential candidates. If we're operating by guidelines this strict, then every single "potential candidates" section on every WP election page apparently violates CRYSTAL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft/Keep Faits1789 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is built off of clear speculation, and although there can be a window to create this article, such as in the vice presidential selections of 2012 and 2016, I think this is not the right time to do so. HarukaAmaranth 春香 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, this article will be of some use closer to the time but until then it's just CRYSTAL spitballing. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TOOSOON/CRYSTALBALL - Definitely way too soon for this. May be reasonable to bring it back later on, right now it's nothing more than pure media speculation. Putting an abridged version on the main primaries page might be fair, however. It's just not worth a full-fledged article. longestview (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think I've ever seen a more misinterpreted rule on Wikipedia than WP:Crystal Ball, which states "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". This article is clearly based on speculation by reliable, expert sources. WP:Too Soon is a more reasonable objection, but this is has received a ton of media speculation already, and the selection is probably less than a year away at this point. As for whether this article is of value to anyone, well, I guess that's subjective but personally I find the VP selection articles to be interesting, and I think it's worthwhile to document the process by which one of the most important elected officials in the United States is selected. Orser67 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an official primary election event taking place next year. The content needs to be reviewed to make sure only properly sourced info is in the article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I want to mention that there are several problems with the content of the article, which is hinted at in the lede. The biggest problem is that this article is based purely on media speculation about who the eventual 2024 Republican nominee for president will be. While the delegates to the Republican convention will officially nominate the VP candidate, in practice, the presumptive presidential nominee will announce their selection of a running mate and the delegates will approve that choice. Since the VP nominee will depend on whom the Republicans nominate, it is better to discuss the speculation on the pages of the candidates, such as Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a news site or a tabloid. We do not need a list of every time someone is mentioned as a possible VP nom - the fact that Kanye is on here demonstrates very well that this is not limited to serious candidates, but is merely a bulletin board where every single possibility mentioned in a source is listed. There is no formal process to outline here. 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
That is complete nonsense. In the first place, there is no Process. The presidential nominee considers the matter and chooses whomever they please. In the second place, at this point, there being no nominees and thus no certainty about whom they may be (yeah, everyone expects a repeat of Biden vs. Trump, but a lot can happen in nine months), everyone is in fact just guessing. And I looked at all those old articles, and the parts about media speculation (which is exactly how it is titled in at least one) ought to be deleted as non-notable cruft. Personally these come across as small heap out of an anthill overwriting of the sort that plagues WP everywhere, for when it comes down to it, the substance could very well be a couple of paragraphs in the campaign articles. Mangoe (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. N. Sharma[edit]

D. N. Sharma (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)

Doesn't qualify for Wikipedia's criteria for notable academics. The Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics of which he is an editor-in-chief has a very low impact factor and the main organisation he's a fellow of appoints about 25 to 40 of them per year. The article was created by a single-purpose account which probably has an extreme conflict of interest. Graham87 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:

Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Faculty list No No No ✘ No
National academy of medical sciences(India) ? No ? ✘ 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}}.
Nagol0929 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally irrelevant for someone whose notability rests on WP:PROF not WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sematary[edit]

Sematary (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 reliable sources, all are either primary or simply not reliable according to WP:RSP. The article uses Discogs, Reddit, SoundCloud, X, Instagram, and Genius (see WP:RSDISCOGS, WP:RSREDDIT, WP:GENIUS) as main sources. Two interviews that were published by other, non-verifiable sources are also included, and for the hell of it I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. This makes Sematary ineligible for a Wikipedia article according to WP:MUSICBIO. He is not the subject of any, let alone multiple non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are notable. He hasn't charted, he hasn't been certified gold or higher, as much as I love the guy there's nothing notable about him in Wikipedia standards. Locust member (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Coakley[edit]

Craig Coakley (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 fighter. Does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK. Being signed to ONE Championship is not sufficient to warrant a page. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next German federal election[edit]

Opinion polling for the next German federal election (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:NOTDATABASE. While the elections themselves and politicians being elected are indubitably notable, ongoing opinion poll scores can hardly be argued to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Utterly bizarre deletion request. Polling pages have been around forever. Is the idea to delete every single one, both past and future? Of course this article should be kept. Spaastm (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red X symbolN Keep. Does not meet WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Elk Salmon (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course — Just like every other "polls page for the next election" in every country. MaeseLeon (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep all other opinion polling articles in Wikipedia. Ed88 (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Opinion polling articles usually exist as splits of the articles for the election due to size concerns. Especially when there is a lot of polling such as here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDATABASE. To quote the exact rule: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" are discouraged but goes on to give an example of a proper use of statistics: "statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election". This is the same situation here.Yeoutie (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly an acceptable article for the site. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a larger discussion on whether there's any value in maintaining rolling opinion poll graphs like this at all anymore, but in the absence of a consensus to quash them all across the board there's no reason to single the German election polling out as uniquely less noteworthy than every other country's election polling. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Randers FC as an uncontested ATD. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristrup Boldklub[edit]

Kristrup Boldklub (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kreativum[edit]

Kreativum (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Princess Tutu as an ATD. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Koumoto[edit]

Shogo Koumoto (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Electribe. Editors are welcome to merge material from the history as they see fit, but given that it's entirely unreferenced, I don't think we need to let it sit with a {{Afd-merge required}} tag. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korg Electribe EM-1[edit]

Korg Electribe EM-1 (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to electribe. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tensei Kono[edit]

Tensei Kono (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Having created one or two possibly notable works does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Also fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, the Japanese Wikipedia entry for this author has a lot more detail about this author's life and career along with some citations. Tensei Kono won the Mystery Writers of Japan Award and was a finalist twice for the Naoki Prize, which strongly proves notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people) additional criteria #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). Sadly, it appears this author has not had much work translated into English but he does have stories in Speculative Japan: Outstanding Tales of Japanese Science Fiction and Fantasy, The Best Japanese Science Fiction Stories and The World Treasury of Science Fiction. I also found some citations about this author in places like Moderne japanische Literatur in deutscher Übersetzung and a 1983 issue of Extrapolation (where he is called an important science fiction writer). Add in all this with the other awards the author won or was a finalist for and this author meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominated for the Naoki Prize twice twice, so meeting ANYBIO point 1, and had three of his works adapted into films, meeting point 3 of NAUTHOR.

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added more information and citations to the article, using the Japanese Wiki article as a guide.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If anyone would like the article userfied or put in draft to be improved, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cassidy[edit]

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

The article reads like a LinkedIn page, it does not meet the usual criteria for the notability of an academic at WP:ACADEMIC. I don't think that there is a strong argument for inclusion due to WP:SIGCOV, many of the sources used in the article currently only mention her tweets briefly. She is a mid-level (early career) academic and frankly if she has a page then there will be many thousands of academics who also qualify. Mountaincirquetalk 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that; I was wondering why I could not find book reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. That actually is a vote for "Weak Delete" on the basis of a little below the critera for WP:PROF (via TOOSOON) and a bit too little on GNG (for Twitter citations). But it's one of these cases where "is it hurting or helping the encyclopedia" makes me think a standard delete is the wrong outcome--it's not promotional, factual, and is about a scholar who is likely (via professional and public engagement) to reach the bar in the near future (but not the 6-months for draft keeping). Wishing there were a "Delete but previous versions available to all registered users" outcome available. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Raid[edit]

Ant Raid (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 video game per WP:GNG. Article failed a PROD in 2020, but has not been edited since. The game has been subject to Metacritic reviews [32] but the Touch Arcade review is the only reliable source. A light WP:BEFORE does not seem to yield anything patently reliable at first glance. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AndEngine[edit]

AndEngine (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 fails WP:GNG. The article has no links, no secondary sources, and seems to be for an engine that is a decade old with no use examples in notable media. Article creator created article with no other edits. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Also ran a quick search for results on Google and wasn't able to find anything. NegativeMP1 22:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Albion Football Club[edit]

Beer Albion Football Club (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)

Football club playing at level 11 of the English pyramid, below the generally accepted cutoff point (and also never competed in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase). See previous examples of AfDs on clubs in the same situation here or here. Number 57 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning that the article was created by the club's social media person. Number 57 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft redirect‎ to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opie Taylor[edit]

Opie Taylor (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)

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. Spinixster (chat!) 07:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Craig Eaton[edit]

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

I redirected this to the article about his father, as it is completely unclear why he should have a separate article, having done nothing of note in his life apparently? He is mentioned in biographies of others or of his family, just like family members often get short mentions in biographies of others, but that's about it, a background "character". Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchs Forest Public School[edit]

Frenchs Forest Public 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)

Primary schools are rarely notable and I see no coverage that would meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children and relationships. I see a consensus here to Redirect this article. However, I don't see any argument about "blanking" this page. So, under the Redirect, the article will remain and can be used if, at some point in the future, this article subject achieves notability outside of his family relationships. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.[edit]

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

Following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 4, the question here is whether to blank-and-redirect this article to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fact that a decently sized article has been written on the basis of mostly reliable secondary sources is prima facie evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Football notability guidelines are unimportant when WP:GNG is clearly met. Being in Portuguese is not a reason to discount a source, and the Telegraph and Guardian are not tabloids. WP:NOTINHERITED simply means that a person is not automatically notable because their father is famous; it doesn't mean that we should discount coverage of them just because they probably wouldn't have received that coverage if their father weren't famous. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts If he isn't Cristiano Ronaldo's son, Do you think the media would cover him or care about him? on the other hand, Has CR Jr. done any important work or achievements yet except being the son of a famous football player? If you remove his father from the equation you will find that he is a very ordinary person and not notable, any young player under normal circumstances the media will not pay attention to him. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 13:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the media is paying an attention to him which has resulted in significant coverage. Discounting significant coverage due to the releation of the individual to his more famous father hints of WP:DONTLIKEIT. Alvaldi (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, quote where Guardian mention Cr. JR. Never mentioned him, when you say that he has greatgrandfather as Cape Verdan descents because of being son then it is biorelated article and Original Research. Please read also again wp:I like, wp:I do not like it, wp:notabilty, wp:Significant coverage, and especially Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS (at least title f the telegram article which is routine) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Notability here is completely inherited. We have WP:YOUNGATH to clarify that youth athletes are rarely notable, Ronaldo Jr. hasn't done anything of note that would make him be notable if his football career ended tomorrow, is clearly only receiving coverage because of his notable lineage, and he can be completely and adequately covered on his father's page. SportingFlyer T·C 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per arguments above.Cortador (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. There are lots of children of celebrities who receive quite a bit of coverage in sources, but per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE that doesn't mean we're obliged to give them their own article. The real question is whether they have enough independent notability to warrant a page, as for example Brooklyn Beckham does. And I don't think that's the case here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BIO1E, especially evidenced by how every sentence in the article connects to his father. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BIO1E is specifically about one event, which clearly does not apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can access every reference, but of those I can, translated, they are basically about his dad, or at best the son as a feature of his dad, often in the article title. At best, there’s the one about the son commenting on Manchester United, but the text makes multiple references to his dad, and this is a very thin bit of news for a Wikipedia article.
    This continues to the 14th source published 23 Jan 2023, with the sources looking like a rush of coverage petering out. The 14 sources look to be every google hit, with a lot of overlap. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above, He is still a young player who has not achieved anything yet or become a professional player. There is no encyclopedic value in creating the article currently. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. If the subject had no significant coverage then WP:NOTINHERITED would apply, but in this case it doesn't as there is significant coverage about the subject. WP:BIO1E hardly applies as he is not known for a single event. Any alleged local consensus in WP:FOOTBALL that junior players are not notable is just that, WP:LOCALCONCENSUS that has no bearing on this AfD or any other. Nothing in WP:YOUNGATH says that this individual is not notable. Young athletes are rarely notable because they don't get significant coverage. This one does. And any attempts to discount sources because they are in Portugese or any other language should only be met with a WP:TROUT as there is absolutely no requirements that sources used on Wikipedia have to be english. Alvaldi (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage here is routine celebrity churnalism that only exists because of a famous father. WP:YOUNGATH excludes most young athletes because most young athletes haven't actually accomplished anything. At this point, the only thing the subject is famous for is being the child of a celebrity, which is crystal clear from the coverage, which does not talk about the subject as a stand alone entity. As a point of comparison, Bronny James only received an article when he was 18 and clearly had enough talent to play at least college basketball, which is now indeed the case. If the minor subject of this article quits football tomorrow, his youth career would most certainly not be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've never required people's careers to be notable. We simply require there to be significant coverage in reliable sources, regardless of the subjective reasons for which they might exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have WP:NOT which allows us to exclude topics which have coverage, which clearly applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. It is a common misconception that a large amount of coverage equates to an automatic page. WP:NOPAGE says quite the opposite - satisfying WP:GNG and significant coverage only confers "presumed notability". But it's perfectly permissible and commonplace for such subjects to be covered in summary form in other "parent" pages, where their notability is primarily through one thing, e.g. perpetrators of crimes, family members, characters in films, that sort of thing. CR7 junior's football career would in no way give him any sort of page absent his famous dad, and he is therefore similar to a whole host of other celebrity family members who also don't have their own page.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for short discussion about "career", I would !vote for keep if the article was described properly based on not wp:routine news (for example 10-30 refs where most do not reffer directly to father) but it is simply impossible due to wo:too soon, by the same manner I would also mergre Dondinho with Pele and Georgina Rodríguez with Cristiano Ronaldo but I would remain neutral or oppose to delte if someone fastly improve these two articles to not just summarize content. In my (exlusionist,antirecentism and often deletionist view - I openely admit) Cr JR is nowhere newar to pass too:soon, Georgina perhaps bit boardline but in next 2-5 years we could review both subjects easier and perhaps permamently and separately. Despite taging to Ronaldo, both have worse/shorter google trends than say haxball (a video game which was three times speedy delted); article on very popular influencer Kimberly Loaiza was at least couple times delted on ESwiki before was finally accepted at well written form. Perhaps time will help to improve the article on young Cristiano too. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:YOUNGATH makes no requirements of any accomplishments, just that the subjects have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage and that the coverage is independent from the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there is enough WP:SIGCOV present in the article based on his own career and separate from any connections with his father. Frank Anchor 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to draftify and redirect mainspace title. upon further review (particularly of non-English sources), the ones that separate Ronaldo, Jr. from his father tend to be more routine in nature (match reports, transactions). I do believe there is a good chance Ronaldo Jr. can become notable on his own merit at some point in the near future. Frank Anchor 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: At DR there was permission to go on "rediroct for discussion" before recreating aticle but we agreed to recreate page (revert redirct) for more analyse of the content and eventual vacancy for draftify. Mergre tag has been removed from the article so likely we are on the point to redirect article by bold deletion of content and redirect directly after closing the AfD. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NCORP. There's nothing particularly notable about what they do that stands out and make them globally noteworthy. It is run of the mill in a sense that organizations that provides xx services for yy demographics in zz area are highly common. Article has a long history of promotional publicity editing as well. Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your comments above are starting to leak a little. By your thinking above, location of the source might indicate prejudice in favor of, or against, or promoting of, any subject. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely chose examples of similar organizations that provide similar services, in major cities. I intentionally compared against something similar so they're as relevant as possible. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see an assessment of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayberk Erkay[edit]

Ayberk Erkay (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)

Primarily, seems to fail WP:GNG. Near-complete lack of sourcing in the article, including why the subject is notable/relevant. I'm also concerned that the article seems to be a copy-paste translation of the Turkish version, with little regard given for ensuring accurate English grammar/style. The Kip 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.
ContributorMix (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have there been any notability-related discussions or proceedings on Turkish Wikipedia? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear so. The Kip 17:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find any sources in which he is more than just a passing mention/citation/reference as the author, translator of some works without any explanation on who exactly he is. The sources used in this article are brief biographical entries. One is from a publishing press website and another is a website that sells tickets/lists theatrical plays. No indication of notability. Aintabli (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ardalan Football Academy[edit]

Ardalan Football Academy (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 notability. I can't see anything notable about this academy, if you google it in English you can't find almost anything about it. there are some news in Persian mentioning it but this academy didn't do anything special to be notable. Sports2021 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Hoberman[edit]

Nicky Hoberman (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:ARTIST. Sources merely confirm her work was exhibited. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_12&oldid=1176261605"