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!} 20:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724)

Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724) (  | 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 time, removal with a discussion, as I mentioned: the time frame of the conflict is taken out of the head, the term does not exist in science, small clashes are called a full-fledged war. Kazman322 ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood ( talk) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Without more info, this seems to be a rush to deletion. The article is a week old and appears to have valid, sourced info (I don't read the languages in question). Sources should be hammered out by nominator and other editors in the article and its Talk -- a Talk that is currently completely blank, so no real attempt has been made. If proponents cannot overcome the objections of the nominator, then come back to AfD. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) With more info, this is a very strong Delete for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In fact, considering the distortion of facts uncovered by Kazman322 and Kges1901, I am extremely concerned about the potential lack of WP:GF with an eye toward WP:V, WP:HONEST and WP:NOTFALSE. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I can analyze the sources cited in the article

1) Erofeeva, who does not speak about the whole war of Kazakhs and Cossacks, only mentioning the raid of Abulkhair as a separate fact. 2) The second source already uses the term Kazakh-Cossack war (Казахско-казачья война), Its author is a certain professor Abdirov. At the same time, a cursory search on Google Scholar or Google Books does not give any results. We can safely assume that the term is an invention of Abdirov and the separation of clashes into a full-fledged war is not popular in historiography. Abdirov himself, judging by the second source, is biased towards the Dzungars and from somewhere he takes the fact of Russia's military assistance to the Dzungar Khanate. At the same time, in historiography, the invasion of the Dzhungars in 1723 does not in any way come into contact with the attack of the Cossacks from the west, this is a strange compilation. 3) The fifth source is a book, no pages indicated, just a book. 4) In the last source, Abdirov says that the Kazakh-Cossack war lasted 200 years (I remind you that this is his personal term, which is not mentioned anywhere else), but the author takes a strange time frame of twenty years and inserts it into the title. From which we can conclude that the article is an excerpt from the works of Abdirov, who coined a term that is unpopular anywhere, called minor clashes a full-fledged war, and the author of the article simply retold his vision of the world. And the author also compiled some other events of these collisions. Note that the article contains the term Kazakh-Russian war which is not mentioned at all in the sources. Kazman322 ( talk) 19:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• • • Even if you pay attention to the content of the article, the intervals of clashes are several years, that is, all these are separate incidents that are not distinguished in science into a single conflict. Kazman322 ( talk) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • The author of the article realized and changed the time frame of the war to another random date, that is, the article and its concept are invented before our eyes. Kazman322 ( talk) 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Abdirov appears to be a credible historian, but parts of the article disort the sources to record events as a Kazakh victory. Source four is a Kazakh eighth grade textbook that says Abul Khair's forces were driven back with significant losses by Russian troops, the opposite of the article's claim. Roudik (source 5) doesn't support what he is cited for, and actually describes the ambush of a Russian peace expedition to Khiva, while not mentioning Kazakh actions at all. Judging from Abdirov's work, there was definitely conflict, but we don't need an article that blatantly distorts sources to exaggerate Kazakh successes. Kges1901 ( talk) 03:36, 13 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!} 23:26, 13 August 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!} 20:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kazakh campaigns of 1843–1844

Kazakh campaigns of 1843–1844 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I mentioned earlier, the event in science is not distinguished in any way, the uprising is not divided into such a period of time, the date is invented. The article was created in order to have the column "Kazakh victory" in the infobox Kazman322 ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood ( talk) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Kenesary's rebellion. Unlike the creator's other articles Bekhmakhanov is quoted accurately with the source not distorted. However, Bekhmakhanov doesn't have a name for these events, and Abdirov's winter campaign phrasing does not refer to the 1843-1844 events. Kges1901 ( talk) 04:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Even the redirect should not be imo, because this term does not exist anywhere at all. Kazman322 ( talk) 13:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have options like "Russian campaigns against Kenesary Khan" and "Russian campaigns against the Kazakh Khanate" of 1843-1844. Batyikhan 4-5 ( talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get second opinions on the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A Redir implies that there is someone, somewhere, who will search for this term. I agree with Kazman322 that the term itself is unattested and thus unlikely to ever be a search string. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:05, 16 August 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!} 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dar El Agha Mosque

Dar El Agha Mosque (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, and Tunisia. Kadı Message 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• It'd be great if someone could at least try to verify this. I have trouble searching in Arabic. SportingFlyer T· C 22:35, 9 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!} 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• {{vd}} THe only source is a book from 1939 and I can't see reliable and independent sources to meet the notability guidelines.-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 04:51, 20 August 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. General concerns about NACADEMIC are best discussed at the talk page of that guideline (see also WP:CONLEVEL). Most participants seem to agree that the currently-accepted thresholds are verifiably met. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Rubin (policy analyst)

Jennifer Rubin (policy analyst) (  | 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 political commentator, does not meet WP:N. Google search pulls up the numerous opinion pieces written by the subject, but no independent/secondary source talking about her. Sabih omar 20:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United Kingdom. — Karnataka ^talk 20:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Unable to find any RS anywhere User:Let'srun 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Adding that I understand there are multiple people with the same name that have wikipedia articles. Let'srun ( talk) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete: No only agree with what nom wrote but created by sock puppet. Delete! Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 10:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London. Very clearly notable. Are people possibly getting her confused with Jennifer Rubin (columnist), who is a political commentator? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I think you are right! Even Jennifer Rubin (Columnist) does not seem un-notable judging by the well-written article on that subject. Sabih omar 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Necrothesp. Meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 & #6. Sal2100 ( talk) 15:08, 4 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!} 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Necrothesp for government offices held. Sources would help. Edison ( talk) 03:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The delete proponents clearly did not check her out. She is not a "political commentator", but a high-ranked government official and academic. Chhandama ( talk) 07:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG - I don't see any secondary coverage of her. Keep !votes are appealing to status, not sources. SportingFlyer T· C 23:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• https://www.ukri.org/news/esrc-executive-chair-professor-rubin-to-take-up-new-home-office-role/ is pretty good in my opinion, and there might be more out there. No strong opinions either way. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Doesn't appear secondary to me. SportingFlyer T· C 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I also want to confirm my source search was for the policy analyst, not the commentator. There are also no WP:GNG passing sources currently in the article either - all press release type fodder. This is a basically a CV bio. SportingFlyer T· C 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are strong views on both sides. I am concerned and agree with User:Necrothesp's comment that early participants and maybe even the nominator might be confusing this article subject with a different Jennifer Rubin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Sal2100, the "status" of executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council probably meets the requirement, among other positions. As for verification, the UKRI ref and others support that. Delete votes which misidentified should be discounted, otherwise perhaps close as no consensus and try again, but in my opinion we should probably just keep as meeting on notability and verifiability. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ User:SportingFlyer, your concern is now about verifiability rather than notability (which the subject appears to meet), correct? Primary sources can also be used in some cases, the UKRI ref comes from a British government website and can probably be used to at least verify her status. However there are other traces online which can be used to corroborate the UKRI, for example https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/esrc-chief-executive-and-ukri-innovation-champion-named, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/19-09-18-2m_funding_award_recognises_the_centre_for_competitive_advantage_in_the_global_economy_as_a_uk_centre_of_research_excellence/, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/jan/dementia-projects-improve-peer-support-prevention-and-end-life-care. I think we can safely conclude her position is verified. - Indefensible ( talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, my main concern is notability. She is clearly not notable per WP:GNG. No secondary sources have covered her in any sort of detail, and the sources you've just posited are not secondary, and she does not have any assumed notability. If there are sources that aren't generated by her organisations or collaborators I haven't found, please let me know. SportingFlyer T· C 17:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Ok, very well. I think she meets on notability per Sal2100 as noted above. - Indefensible ( talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough. I'm not seeing it, but WP:ACADEMIC is really difficult to apply outside the walled garden. Easiest to just look at GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 18:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Her position doesn't confer to being notable on its own. Let'srun ( talk) 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Keep as the notability aspect is met per Indefensible, and the verifiability aspect is met by reliable sourcing from the UK govt. IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk) 17:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep I was considering Necrothesp's cite of this, but then considered this as possibly WP:ROUTINE, but after Beccaynr's exploration of wp:NACADEMIC I'm now in favour of keeping. (I changed my mind twice here) Chumpih ^t 19:29 and 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC), 16:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per WP:NPROF#3, she is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences [1], and per WP:NPROF#7, she appears to have a substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity, e.g. Professor Jennifer Rubin, Executive Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Professor of Public Policy at King’s College London, has been appointed Chief Scientific Adviser and Director General Science, Technology, Analysis, Research and Strategy for the Home Office (UKRI, 2020). Beccaynr ( talk) 04:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Is that an independent source? Chumpih ^t 06:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  According to WP:NACADEMIC, The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. For documenting election for NPROF#3, publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source; the source I cited above includes a quote from the president of the electing institution and a link to a pdf listing new fellows (that is not working nor available at the Internet Archive). The NPROF#7 guideline offers examples of how to demonstrate substantial impact, and this discussion seems to help show some of the challenges with one of the typical methods ("frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area") because searches are complicated by Jennifer Rubin the columnist/commentator, and on JSTOR, Jennifer Rubin Grandis. So I suggest her verifiable career outside of academia in her academic capacity seems to help support notability, in addition to the NPROF#3 recognition. However, there is also apparent coverage in Times Higher Education: ESRC chief executive and UKRI ‘innovation champion’ named (2017), but I cannot access this; and with an assist from ProQuest, I also found this Jennifer Rubin quoted in mainstream press: Guardian, 2020. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Understood. Thanks very much for this explanation and additional research. I change my stance. (again) Chumpih ^t 16:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  This sort of explanation is exactly why NACADEMIC should be deprecated and replaced with GNG. We wouldn't push together bits and pieces like this for anyone in any other profession. I don't think that will happen any time soon, though. SportingFlyer T· C 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  From my view, the recognition from her peers through the election as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is similar to other SNGs, such as a "significant award or honor" ( WP:ANYBIO) or "The person is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers" ( WP:AUTHOR), and overall, this recognition seems to help show, as noted in the academics section in WP:BIO, how "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Beccaynr ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  But that would imply every fellow is notable, and that's clearly not the case from clicking the wikilink... I disagree with the premise of the academics section, but that's policy. NACADEMIC is just incredibly difficult to apply for someone outside the walled garden... SportingFlyer T· C 21:49, 20 August 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 Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. There isn't clear consensus for a "not to be confused with" style merger, however the history remains if there's particular material worth adding. Star Mississippi 11:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings

The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See below TSventon ( talk) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

SPHB appears to be a limited company that existed between 2007-2011 run by a family in Scotland to raise money for their castle. [2] If there was an earlier organisation of the same name I cannot find any evidence of its existence or its relationship to the company. The article was created by Mph259, the initials of one of the people who ran the company - their only other contribution to Wikipedia was to Islam in Mexico and the same person in the company wrote a chapter in an academic book about Islam in Mexico, which is further evidence of their identity and an obvious conflict of interest. If you google "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" it comes up with a few references, but they invariably seem to be confusing it with a different organisation Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. For example this article [3] says "The same belief in the vital importance of heritage protection also led to the founding of other organisations such as the Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (SPAB)..." As they have specified SPAB they undoubtedly mean the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. An IP address (judging from contributions probably connected to Mph259) added that it was "noted" in a 1969 architectural journal - again it may be a case of confusion with SPAB (I don’t have access to the article). Apart from Mph259 and the IP address, no editors have contributed anything to the article except for formatting, punctuation, etc. and it gets virtually no hits and has no links from other articles, except user pages. It therefore seems to have been created as an advertisement for a short-lived company and has no notability. Johnbod removed the notification of deletion tag, suggesting a merger instead. However the company has no connection with The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), so there would be no content to merge. Southdevonian ( talk) 16:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The natural confusion, which you mention, is enough to justify a couple of lines in a section at the bottom. If this supposed to be an Afd nom? this is not how you do them. Johnbod ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment Johnbod. Yes, it is supposed to be an Afd nomination - the first time I have attempted one. Perhaps you can tell me where I have gone wrong? Southdevonian ( talk) 16:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , and look at a couple of other ones first. Johnbod ( talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I have already read that page and obviously missed something - but thank you for your suggestion Johnbod. Southdevonian ( talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge instead to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings - a couple of lines at the bottom to avoid ongoing confusion. Johnbod ( talk) 17:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Little evidence of notability. I oppose the proposal to merge with an article about an unrelated organisation with a similar name. Maproom ( talk) 19:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a non notable organisation and oppose merge or redirect to SPAB which is notable but entirely different. Mccapra ( talk) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If it is deleted then the name needs to redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, as a Google search finds that SPAB is often referred to (probably incorrectly) by this name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly, and that is why a brief addition there is worthwhile. Johnbod ( talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings is also used as a translation of da:Foreningen til Gamle Bygningers Bevaring. TSventon ( talk) 17:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Which seems to be quite a large and old bygningsbevaringsforening (great word). That could go in the same section. Johnbod ( talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I have now had a more thorough look at the Google results for "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" and will revise what I said before about invariably confusing it with "Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings" (SPAB). Google comes up with about 48 results. Some of them are mirror sites of Wikipedia and Companies House or lists garnered from them, including an academic article that copies Wiki text. Some are translations of foreign organisations, for example a Dutch organisation. Some are local American organisations, for example, the Montachusett Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. Two refer to fictional characters. That leaves four certain or almost certain examples of confusion (including one gossip website), plus four probable or possible examples. I do not see that as enough to justify a redirect or mention in the article about SPAB. There is just one thing that still worries me - whether there ever existed a small local 19th-20th century organisation with the name "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings", which might explain one of the possible examples of confusion. But there is nothing in the British Library Catalogue or the National Archives Catalogue. Southdevonian ( talk) 12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The earliest version of the article begins The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings was founded in 1858 in Leicestershire and was a pressure group established to oppose the demolition of the country house known as Danet's Hall by the Leicester Freehold Land Society. The group purchased the lordship of the manor and used this to exert pressure to attempt to prevent the hall's demolition, without success., which might be true, but is unsourced. TSventon ( talk) 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge/Redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings or if straight out Deletion is called for here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting comment as before. Just seeking a bit more clarity on ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There's certainly an organisation with this name that precedes the 2007–2011 reincarnation. Found mentions in UK newspaper reports in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - but only mentions. One report referred to the Royal Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. The Journal of Architectural Education reference is a name check only of the earlier entity. Don't think the sourcing stands up to a merge as reliability is unclear and there's no indication the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is related. Rupples ( talk) 02:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

No, they very clearly aren't related to SPAB - nobody thinks that. This is more a "not to be confused with" thing. Perhaps its not necessary to be too precise about they are not to be confused with, beyond the name. Johnbod ( talk) 02:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Just located a reference that the Society was founded by John Ruskin in 1854 here: [4]. Rupples ( talk) 03:18, 20 August 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 Football in Slovakia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Slovak football league system

Slovak football league system (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article is outdated and it no longer serves any purpose for the reader, if it would be improved it would be okay to keep for sure but not at this stage Michael H ( talk) 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Michael H ( talk) 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Football in Slovakia and update if necessary. There's no need for two articles, and the other one is practically empty. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  idk, football in slovakia should give overview of all football related info from slovakia while this article should give an overview of how the leagues work, the problem isnt the reason but the content, theres no point in merging an outdated article Michael H ( talk) 07:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Clarityfiend: The only reason it was "practically empty" is because the nominator of this AfD blanked it just before opening the discussion. I've reverted. Michael H, considering you were blocked for this kind of disruptive editing just last week, this isn't a good look. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  please stop being hostile Michael H ( talk) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep after info was restored. It seems that there are pairs of such articles for each European state (though I'm a bit dubious about Gibraltar football league system), so for the sake of consistency, I've changed my lvote. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep so update it then? AFD is not cleanup. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  if the article is for current navigation trough slovak football leagues and its outdated it can seriously confuse any reader Michael H ( talk) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep (#1) i, the proposal author would like to withdraw the nomination Michael H ( talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Clarityfiend: Since there's no longer anyone here favoring deletion, would you be all right with a speedy keep, without prejudice against follow-up merge discussion? -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Football in Slovakia as above. Happy for AFD to be closed and merger discussion else elsewhere. Giant Snowman 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect I also feel that the title here is a plausible search term. Govvy ( talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those wanting to Keep the aritcle and those seeking a Merge. Policy-based arguments would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• This is an unsourced article with a simple template, so theoretically seems easy to delete - however it's also part of a larger set of "X football league system" seen throughout Europe. It's hard to argue for keep without any sources, and I'm not prepared to adopt this, but I think a merge would be fine, as long as re-creation isn't expressly prohibited by this AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merger under stipulation - I'd be okay with a merge as long as the pyramid stays with the new page. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge with no prejudice against recreation, I think the arguments for that in this discussion are quite sound. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:39, 20 August 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!} 07:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rudhraksh J

Rudhraksh J (  | 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)

Rudhraksh J

The actual subject of this article is an actor who has had one major role and so does not satisfy acting notability. There has already been a deletion discussion using his full name; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudhraksh Jaiswal, and Rudhraksh Jaiswal is a redirect. This article has an abbreviated form of his name as a novel method of gaming of article titles. The AFD was tainted by sockpuppetry by both the Keep and the Delete voters, but that does not warrant trying to evade the name. The redirect is not locked, so the originator could have expanded the redirect, or asked for Deletion Review. A review of the article shows that this article also does not establish acting notability or general notability. A review of the references shows that they are not about the actor, but about films about the Mahabharata, an interview with an actress, and an interview with the subject.

There is also a draft, Draft:Rudhraksh Jaiswal. It should be left so that it can be expanded if he has another major role. This title should be deleted because it is not a plausible search term and is an article about a non-notable person. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I'd typically support a WP:ATD-R alternative, but I agree with the nom that it seems an implausible search term, which would become a WP:R3 redirect to delete. Options to expand the draft or re-edit the redirect at the appropriate time when additional roles/coverage can be added should be utilized, as also stated by nom. - 2pou ( talk) 16:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe Soft Deletion is not possible due to the previous AFD under a different article title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete seems the best course, sources are a no-go, search term is too broad so that I find anyone with this name. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

CCFilms

CCFilms (  | 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)

Don't believe this is notable enough. No sources in article, and can't find any proving notability when searching either. Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Advertising. Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, no usable sources. Probably eligible for G11 as well.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete since there’s no sources Elttaruuu ( talk) 02:55, 20 August 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 Tom Scott (YouTuber). Star Mississippi 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lateral with Tom Scott

Lateral with Tom Scott (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no coverage of this podcast in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Kingdom. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge Selective merge to the Tom Scott article, the podcast isn't notable for lack of sourcing, but the individual behind it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I wonder if a redirect may be preferable. There is a stark lack of sourcing for this topic and thus no RS-backed prose in the article, so a redirect may be better in this scenario. Thoughts? Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Schminnte seems a worthwhile part of Scott's online/career presence to exist as at least a section in his article, so merge seems best rather than remove it entirely Quinby ( talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes, but we need reliable sources to back up this proposed section. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Schminnte true, I did try and add a couple but it seems like the podcast is mostly constricted to podcast-specific websites. Dextero did have an article referencing it. Quinby ( talk) 21:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge, per Oaktree b. History6042 ( talk) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Merge to Tom Scott (YouTuber). I'm not seeing any reliable sources available for this podcast. I also don't see any reason to merge. The article is mostly an episode list. At most there are only three sentences of prose with primary sources. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Tom Scott's page; this is not independently notable on its own. note that the podcast's Twitter/X account is canvassing people to edit the page: https://twitter.com/lateralcast/status/1691191875250618368 wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  In fairness, I wouldn't say that's explicitly canvassing: they are asking people to improve the article, not comment here. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  True. wizzito | say hello! 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now - There is a TubeFilter source that taks substantiately about the podcast. I personally believe it to be a reliable source, but that's the only one I could find which contains WP:SIGCOV about it. If no other sources can be found between now and the next few days, this makes a pretty valid Merge. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and Merge Currently there aren't enough sources meeting GNG for an article, but this seems worthwhile to have in Tom Scott's page. However, a split should be on the table in the future if there is more coverage of this. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Tom Scott: Non-notable podcast, best to merge the most pertinent info to the article about the notable host User:Let'srun 02:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Tom Scott (YouTuber). The TubeFilter article is probably the only good source for it. SWinxy ( talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG, but there is probably some content here worth salvaging, for example from the lead. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:14, 20 August 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!} 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

European National Front

European National Front (  | 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 references, inline or otherwise. Preliminary Google search shows that this is unnotable . QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and Italy. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Lots of hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. This chapter contains a moderate amount of discussion fo the group. Josh Milburn ( talk) 10:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

   Courtesy link:  European National Front on Google. -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 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 William & Mary Tribe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tribe Fight Song

Tribe Fight Song (  | 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)

Insufficient independent sourcing on the page to show notability. I don't see any references outwith of the College which reference the topic. Possibly should be merged and redirected but I don't know where to JMWt ( talk) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. JMWt ( talk) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Virginia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No evidence of notability for which significant independent reliable secondary sources would be required. Cannot find any. Doesn't even get a mention on The College of William & Mary, because it is just a song sung after touchdowns in sports. It does get a mention at the William & Mary Tribe page, which is about the university athletics teams. That is as much as is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Agree with Sirfurboy on everything except the !vote. This has good info with the right depth and substance to replace the Fight Songs section of the main article. It does not merit an article of its own. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the merge proposal as a deletion alternative.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge - per ATD. Redirects are cheap. Even if there was nothing to merge, a redirect is certainly a better option than deletion.

4.37.252.50 ( talk) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment What is the Merge target article you are arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Last1in suggests the Fight Songs section of William & Mary Tribe. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:27, 19 August 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!} 20:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mary Mambwe

Mary Mambwe (  | 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 made at least one appearance for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 08:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sirius XM Weather & Emergency

Sirius XM Weather & Emergency (  | 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 a lack of secondary coverage about this channel which leads to the subject not meeting WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Let'srun ( talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per the nomination. The article fails WP:GNG and there are no references. The external links seem to be borked due to the radio channel being shuttered 12 years ago. IncompA 01:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. (ETA: or redirect, I forgot that we also had a list that this could be redirected to.) Sirius XM channels can be independently notable if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage and analysis to pass WP:GNG, but are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles in the absence of any GNG-building coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels as WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Jumpytoo Talk 06:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect per Jumpytoo Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 23:09, 15 August 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!} 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Vanuza

Vanuza (  | 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 made at least four appearances for the Angola women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this short piece from 2021 about her recovering from an injury. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Angola. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. Although the article that JT linked did say that she was the captain of the Angolan women's national team, there is still a lack of the coverage needed to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC. The Night Watch (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just a note that she actually captained the Angola women's national under-20 football team. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 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. I draftified this article in the first AFD closure so that the article could be improved and submitted to AFD for review but instead it was moved back to main space. This AFD discussion will be closed as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ajmal Selab

Ajmal Selab (  | 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 moved from draft with no improvement from prior AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajmal Selab Whpq ( talk) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Afghanistan. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without draftification this time. He has not held any role that would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but has not been shown to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing either. Bearcat ( talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Do not Delete He is a significant politician in Afghanistan. and most of Afghan peoples knows him. He held the position of head of Afghan vice president during Karzai administration. also He is a well-known lawyer over the country.

please do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parwiz ahmadi ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

"Most of X peoples knows him" is not a Wikipedia notability criterion, because anybody could say that about anything if they didn't actually have to prove it. Notability is not a question of the things you say, it's a question of the quality and depth of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things you say, and the sourcing in this article isn't cutting it as it isn't about him at all. Bearcat ( talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think Notability has been proved in various links. 2407:AA80:314:94CD:247B:8580:C461:D76F ( talk) 11:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The only source provided that even comes close to aiding in establishing notability is this one. All the others are brief mentions, or just quoting what he is saying about something else, or doesn't even mention him. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I agree with Whpq not enough notability. Only one source has WP:SIGCOV

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!} 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Alianne Matamoro

Alianne Matamoro (  | 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 made at least five appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was this and this. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 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. Ordinarily, I'd redirect this article but the subject is not mentioned in the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Braisy Cabrera

Braisy Cabrera (  | 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 made at least two appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the women's national football team. GNG not met, per nom. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Artemisa Diario was the best that I could find and it's not enough for GNG. I don't agree with redirecting as she is not mentioned at the suggested target and so the redirect would only confuse the reader. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 16 August 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. —  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Farzad ghaderi

Farzad ghaderi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was draftified by Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi with the rationale "Not notable and not edited well". The page Draft:Farzad ghaderi is very similar (see compare 1170203333 to 1170194633). I would contend that the same notability issues exist as pointed out by Syed. He fails WP:NMMA. I think that there is potential for notability for his participation in Wushu, but I cannot verify any of these championships. It is possible there are no english language sources I could find, but in my WP:BEFORE, I could not verify that he won the competitions stated. I have also found some information that contradicts information stated in the article. For example, the article states that at the 2022 Tunisia Kempo World Championships that Farzad Ghaderi won a 75kg competition, but I find that he came in third in three different competitions at that championship. Regardless, I cannot find enough to push him over any WP:SNG I could find or WP:GNG. I think that developing the existing draft with other sources to push over WP:GNG would probably be the best course of action. Tartar Torte 19:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Iran. Tartar Torte 19:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Delete for PROMO. Unless he's passed away in the recent protests (which seems unlikely), there is no coverage for this individual. Sourcing used is in non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Promo/vanity page, doesn't meet notability for a martial artist or GNG Nswix ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete and salt Promo/vanity page/COI, doesn't pass notability for MMA or WP:GNG. Lethweimaster ( talk) 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is a lack of sourcing for the wushu championships and no indication that they are major events. Database entries do not meet WP:GNG and his highest ever MMA ranking was #531 according to fightmatrix.com . Nothing shows that any WP notability criteria is met. Papaursa ( talk) 00:03, 15 August 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!} 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Analía Céspedes

Analía Céspedes (  | 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 made at least one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team according to Soccerway. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - best I can find is CONCACAF, which doesn't address her in enough depth Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 08:27, 20 August 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Prevention Point Philadelphia

Prevention Point Philadelphia (  | 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)

Run of the mill local health non-profit for drug users. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls ( talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and Pennsylvania. Graywalls ( talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete run on the mills and only own website citations (or mostly). Notability concern is obvious here. Rodgers V ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 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. given the improvement that has occurred since the nomination. More sources would be better but the one that is present should be sufficient for the subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Louise Ipsen

Louise Ipsen (  | 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 person does not seem significant. No other citations can be found. Google books found some passing mentions matching her name, but they could be for others with the same name. Upper Deck Guy ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Upper Deck Guy ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I found no notable coverage to back up this article. Zero. It sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Once sources used, while a RS, is barely a one-liner. Swedish Enclyclopedia? which seems ok, but I can't find anything else about this individual. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  One hit in Gscholar, appears to be a bio in German, but I'm not sure it's the same person. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep The reason why you can't find sources about this person is because she is Danish. Thus, she may not have many English language references, because the English speaking world has, until the era of the internet, not been very interested to write about the more obscure subjects of Danish history, such as notable women. She is a Dane, and she is included in the danish language encylopedia of notable women of Danish history. If you judge notablity from how many English language references there are about her, then there are many, many notable women of history that you should delete from Wikipedia. Prior to internet, the English speaking world wrote very sparingly about the more obscure history (in this case, women's history) subjects of smaller countries such as Denmark. It is one of the good things about the internet era that these obscure topics can be translated and made availabile to the English speaking world, since foreign language references are accepted in Wikipedia. It would not be a good policy to contradict that development. -- Aciram ( talk) 21:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Gscholar didn't turn up sources in any language, that's the issue. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Not uncommon for obscure historical subjects which are less well known. Historical 19th-century women of small countries are not likely to have much information online even when they are notable. For example: there was zero results on Swedish actresses of the pre-1773 period online until they were given their first articles in Swedish language wikipedia. None. That was because Swedish theater history of that period was not even much known among Swedes, only the experts. The internet era is changing all that. Not every notable subject is yet online, particularly not about obscure subjects such as "women's history" which has long been neglected, and not all books are digitalized. They are however to be found in actual material books outside of the internet, in this case not English language books. -- Aciram ( talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Shellwood ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Aciram and WP:ANYBIO#3. pburka ( talk) 00:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment Regardless of gender, if major business executives of Denmark and other such countries qualify for inclusion on enWP, this should be kept. I am about to edit the article slightly for clarity. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Being a business executive does not qualify anyone for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, being included in a dictionary of national biography does (per WP:ANYBIO). pburka ( talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You apparently missed the word "major" in my comment. Had you not missed it, I doubt you'd have thought your objection was warranted. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Which notability guideline supports the inclusion of major business executives? pburka ( talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

No notability guideline specifies categories of people of major interest. I'm surprised you don't know that. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 11:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Aciram. - Yupik ( talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: There are many versions of her names. So far, I have come across Christine Louise Ipsen, Christine Lovise Ipsen, Louise Ipsen, Lovise Ipsen, Bjerring, Bierring, Biering, Bjering, etc (and I had never heard of her before seeing this AfD a half hour ago). She is listed in the census of 1850 as Lovise Bjerring. - Yupik ( talk) 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Significance is established in the first couple sentences. This is not a living person so we do not need extensive sourcing. It seems that further sourcing is being researched though, and further strong sources if found will further bolster the case for keeping. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Aciram Elttaruuu ( talk) 02:52, 20 August 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!} 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship

Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no significant coverage in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NEVENT. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ireland. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no WP:GNG coverage to be found. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:31, 20 August 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!} 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Suriya Filmography Telugu

Suriya Filmography Telugu (  | 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 already a page called Suriya filmography. This page is therefore unwanted. Besides, Suriya mainly works in Tamil cinema. The films listed on this page are Telugu dubbed versions of his Tamil films. Trisha'sNemo ( talk) 17:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 13. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. @ Kailash29792: Do you think box office success's dubbed version names should be mentioned in Suriya filmography such as Surya S/o Krishnan (re-released in Telugu only) [5]. DareshMohan ( talk) 05:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I think not, unless the dubbed version made an impact, or has notable differences. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Steven R. Carter

Steven R. Carter (  | 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)

Failure of WP:GNG per WP:ACADEMIC. His publications have not held a significant influence over his field, much less in general. Not too different from the regular university professor. GuardianH ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Concur with original opinion. Aside from a singular (rather minor) award, there does not seem to be anything conferring notability to the point of having a biographical page.

A MINOTAUR ( talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No indication that WP:NPROF is met. The American Book Award is unsourced (and the website of the host doesn't seem to list recipients of previous years), but even with that, notability isn't established. No sources to fulfill WP:BASIC either. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:54, 20 August 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. Star Mississippi 11:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha'

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha' (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{( talk・ contribs)} 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{( talk・ contribs)} 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per linked AfD - these species are essentially taxonomic phantoms that can never be nailed down now that they are extinct. No basis for an article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is a sufficient reference. See also the references in https://recentlyextinctspecies.com/fishes/aplocheilichthys-sp-nov-naivasha
  • Hanssens, M. (2004a). Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha'. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. ( http://www.iucnredlist.org). Downloaded on 04 May 2013.
  • Hanssens, M. (2004b). Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha'. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T61225A12451418. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T61225A12451418.en. Downloaded on 27 June 2021.
  • Seegers, L., De Vos, L. and Okeyo, D. O. (2003). Annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Kenya (excluding the lacustrine haplochromines from Lake Victoria). Journal of East African Natural History 92: 11-47. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Kenya. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 04:33, 15 August 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo'

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{( talk・ contribs)} 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{( talk・ contribs)} 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per linked AfD - these species are essentially taxonomic phantoms that can never be nailed down now that they are extinct. No basis for an article. (Maybe don't make the nomination that terse though, at first I thought there wasn't a rationale at all) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not formally described? Then definitely not notable. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Kenya. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not officially extinct, and real enough to warrant listing in the Red List. Once it is formally described, the article can be moved to the new name. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 04:32, 15 August 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!} 21:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jest (framework)

Jest (framework) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's part of series of articles on open-source Facebook software; it's basically stuff that made and backed (both financially and via ads) by corporation which is only well known in limited circles. No need for a separate article. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in independent sources. A BEFORE search didn't turn up anything useable either. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:48, 20 August 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 Planetary romance. There was no consensus on what content could be merged to that target, so no merge for now. Objections to merging were based on sourcing issues, not appropriateness of merging in principle; accordingly, if reliable sources are found, merging content from the page history to the target would likely be in accordance with consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sword and planet

Sword and planet (  | 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)

"Sword and planet" is a rarely used term that is more or less synonymous with " planetary romance", which is much more widely used. A conversation on Talk:Sword and planet has led to a consensus that redirecting the page to planetary romance is the right approach, perhaps with a sentence added to the target page mentioning the term, if that can be sourced well enough. Piotrus, one of the participants in that discussion, suggested that since most of sword and planet is unsourced, and what is sourced would not survive as an article if the unsourced material were deleted and would not be merged into the target, it would be effectively equivalent to a deletion and so AfD should be the venue. Siroxo found these uses of the term: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] but none are enough to establish that GNG is met for the term. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge lightly to planetary romance. didn’t know this wasn’t supposed to be synonymous. Not an individually notable genre. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• For unsourced but unproblematic content (no copyvio, promotion, or attack/defamation) redirection or merging is always preferable to outright deletion, because the history is maintained and it is possible for a non-admin to see the history and retrieve content for improvement from it. Jclemens ( talk) 21:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. I would propose to simply change the article to a redirect, without deleting history. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or weak merge while preserving history, per my talk page comments on the article talk page (I've also done my BEFORE, tried to verify some content in the article, and sadly conclude that it is very ORish). And yes, most sources treat those terms as synonyms, so proposed redirect/merge target is correct. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Planetary romance. As noted here and on the talk page, sources largely treat the terms as synonymous. I don't know that there is any content worth merging as both articles are at the moment rather poor. A "Terminology" section explaining the connection to sword and sorcery/ sword and sandal on the one hand and Romance (prose fiction) on the other would be helpful, and such a section could also potentially go into detail about what distinctions sources that do not treat the terms as synonymous make. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  By the way—and this has no bearing on this discussion as such but might nevertheless be of interest—I found the following quote from Gary Westfahl on the appeal of Edgar Rice Burroughs's approach to portraying Barsoom in this manner (though Westfahl never mentions either "planetary romance" or "sword and planet", so it might not be useable here): Burroughs's depiction of an advanced but decadent civilization further allowed for stimulating inconsistencies, in that one could logically believe a culture at that stage would have retained aspects of its past science and lost others; by picking and choosing what might have been remembered and what might have been forgotten, Burroughs could generate scenarios for thrilling encounters, like the incongruous scene depicted on the Ballantine Books cover of The Gods of Mars—a furious sword-fight waged on top of a futuristic aircraft. ( The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters, p. 154). TompaDompa ( talk) 02:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Planetary romance. I don't think anything on the page is reliably sourced and worth preserving. There's sources saying the two are synonymous and none differentiating between them. CohenTheBohemian ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge per the research I performed in the talk page discussion. I would not be surprised if this splits out again in a few years, but in the current state of access to sources, we can't establish WP:GNG — siro χ o 05:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep / merge to section it's ambiguous about whether these are actually the same thing. Sword and planet is based on the fantasy genre known as sword and sorcery, where planetary romance may seen as the science fiction extension of the lost world genre. Sword and sorcery may be a better merge target. And wherever this is merged, sword and planet will need to be distinguished as a distinct subgroup. Shooterwalker ( talk) 04:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to planetary romance. There is little sourced content to merge and I do not see a consistent usage of the terms as distinct genres. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:35, 20 August 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Terrence J. Campbell

Terrence J. Campbell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Also fails WP:JUDGE. Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems like a possibility here. Let'srun ( talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Kansas. Let'srun ( talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to proposed target per other similar cases. - Indefensible ( talk) 14:44, 13 August 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) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jane Goodall Institute

Jane Goodall Institute (  | 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:CORP. Some independent sources mention the subject but there is no WP:SIGCOV to speak of and a lot of these sources are either from the subject's website or press releases/churnalism orchestrated by the subject. Icicle City ( talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Jane Goodall; it seems heavily interwoven with Goodall and may be better incorped at her respective article. GuardianH ( talk) 16:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Some coverage here: https://news.asu.edu/20230627-jane-goodall-institute-and-asu-take-first-steps-expand-partnership, https://kjzz.org/content/1850833/asu-expands-work-jane-goodall-institute. I agree that merging to Jane Goodall might be the best option though; similar treatment by Encyclopedia Britannica. - Indefensible ( talk) 17:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Additional mentions:

  • https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21/bu-wins-prestigious-jane-goodall-institute-environmental-awards-work-local-primary-school
  • https://www.directionsmag.com/pressrelease/11794
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20230601224348/https://www.gpsworld.com/jane-goodall-institute-releases-storymap-highlighting-chimp-habitat-conservation/
  • https://variety.com/2017/film/news/jane-goodall-institute-partering-with-fox-caesar-chimpanzee-sanctuary-1202454311/
  • https://iaia.edu/anna-rathmann-executive-director-at-the-jane-goodall-institute-usa-and-the-partnership-with-iaia/

  - Indefensible ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst ( talk) 20:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC) t reply
• keep, meets WP:ORG. Also note that there is no one good merge target, as while much of the work of the institute was begun by Jane Goodall, projects such as Roots & Shoots and TACARE have grown well beyond her individual involvement. There are also other projects of the institute. If we were to perform a complex multi-way split/merge we'd end up with not-infrequent references to this subject with no anchoring article and it would not improve the encyclopedia. The SIRS sources linked below represent a non-exhaustive search, there is most definitely more, probably much more (most links to proquest)
  1. Wilson (2021) in Evolutionary Human Sciences discusses research done by ~50 employees of the institute, in depth [12]
  2. Mavanza & Grossman (2007) in Population and Environment discusses the TACARE project and the institutes involvement beyond Goodall herself, in-depth [13]
  3. Lonsdorf et al, (2022) American Journal of Primatology discuss the institute's involvement (beyond Goodall herself) in TACARE and related training, in depth [14]
  4. Johnson-Pynn & Johnson (2005) in The Journal of Environmental Education discusses Roots & Shoots project including the institute, in depth [15]
  5. D&B Hoovers profile of institute [16]

— siro χ o 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Siroxo, there seems to be enough notability for the subject beyond its founder. Article definitely needs ref improvement though. - Indefensible ( talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Siroxo, significant coverage. And per Indefensible the article needs to be updated with sources like these. -- Green C 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Siroxo and the others. Delete the Jane Goodall Institute? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, this is one I'll beat my chest and shake my head at, and log off for now. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support merge I've read through the above and I can conclude that there isn't enough WP:RS to satisfy a separate article about this organisation without applying WP:SYNTH to those primary sources which will innevitably result in a listy, WP:OR heavy article. Jane Goodall can host any content supported by whatever reliable seconday sources there might be, although I haven't seen many of those yet. Icicle City ( talk) 14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep I find Siroxo's argument the most convincing, with the subject meeting notability policy with coverage independent of Goodall herself. Resonant Dis_tortion 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While the article itself remains poorly sourced, the additional sources produced here are enough to support an independent article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:37, 20 August 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Khesraw

Ahmad Khesraw (  | 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)

Despite being capped at international level, I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have looked at the other language Wikipedia articles and searched in Farsi (احمد خسرو) but still found nothing of use. Database sources like Soccerway seem to be all we have. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per lack of sources offering significant coverage. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk) 17:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not enough sources. fails WP:SIGCOV. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2022 Isfara missile attacks

2022 Isfara missile attacks (  | 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 lists a large number of non-English references, but some people think this is a hoax. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Fumikas Sagisavas Feed those sources into a machine translator and you’ll see they say absolutely nothing whatsoever about any missile attacks. Classic WP:SNEAKY trick.

The infobox and body are self-contradictory. Because there was no missile attack (let alone two). Only some shooting and shelling which is already covered by an article.

The use of ballistic missile attacks in a border skirmish would be highly notable and attract coverage outside the region.

Thus I decided to call it “blatant” since thirty seconds of critical reading (even without checking the sources) will indicate the highly sus nature of the page.

RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 13:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per RadioactiveBoulevardier with a lean toward WP:SPEEDY under WP:A11. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  G5 may also apply, as nom pointed out on their talk page. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 16:38, 17 August 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. Problematic sourcing and a BLP Star Mississippi 11:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rayoe

Rayoe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a musician that does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sources are not WP:RS. Jamiebuba ( talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Ghana. Jamiebuba ( talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

sources have been updated to include more WP:RS sources. This is my second wikipedia article. and I am hopeful to cover more articles on ghanaian musicians. Cobbyannor ( talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

added more sources. in ghana most news articles are written based on comments or interviews from other musicians. I added so many sources earlier because i was trying to make the article as extensive as possible. i noticed most ghana articles about entertainers are not really extensive. with this rayoe article have added more sources and updated sources to ensure they are WPRS and also i used the Find sources: Google (books · news · to find news on Rayoe which i added as a source. for instance, this article https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 was found when i clicked on the news and i have added it as a source. i think the deletion tag can be removed . this discussion can be closed. thank you all for helping me to be a better wikipedia contributor. i am hopeful to cover extensively more ghana entertainers musicians. thank you. quick one example of the extensive research done.. i search for Rayoe's real name and through that i found this article https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ and i added it to the sources far earlier.. that helped make the article more extensive. Thank you Cobbyannor ( talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

more WP:RS sources have been added.. And there were already WP:RS sources in the article. Cobbyannor ( talk) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the article has been updated since the last relist. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

deletion tag can be removed now Cobbyannor ( talk) 10:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cobbyannor, the AFD tag must remain until this discussion is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Source 1 from the article appears to be an unattributed copy of Source 5. I have removed it from the article in accordance with WP:CV/ WP:ELNEVER. I think the fact that GhanaWeb published an unambiguous copyright violation speaks to the lack of reliability of that source (as a publisher), so we can disregard all sources published there for the purposes of notability. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I've removed two additional citations for the same reason. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 15:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  that means all citations of wikipedia where ghanaweb was used in all wikipedia articles concerning ghanaians should be disregareded.. ghana web is a big reliable source for all Ghana information Cobbyannor ( talk) 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply