Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 8 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to 2021–2022 Iranian protests. Liz 23:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 University of Sharif protests crackdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many civil disturbances in Iran. No fatalities and no indication of lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 23:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person. The three independent sources only mention him briefly; two of them are about Nicholas Fuentes and mention James only in passing. A brief search for sources doesn't turn up much else that's promising: a Vice and Propublica article are about the best of it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


I believe I cited the sources well. If he’s not notable, I’ll find proof otherwise. Admiral Farmer James has made headlines in left-wing media, even getting a team-up with Mike Lindell. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/88qm4v/mike-lindell-mypillow-vincent-james

Furthermore, with calls of a sitting State Senator for him to run for office, and getting his website promoted by a sitting Congressman, I for one say this article stays. https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/arizona-state-sen-wendy-rogers-calls-holocaust-denier-vincent-james-foxx-run https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/rep-paul-gosar-has-been-promoting-white-nationalist-site-warns-readers-they-are

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) 4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

A review of the sources shows Hughes-Warrington doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or GNG. Majority of RS found through google focus on criticism over her school's handling of its music department where she was the spokesperson. They don't seem to show significant coverage of her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant BLPN thread that I should have posted earlier. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable website dedicated to Eurovision. The sources are either unreliable (IMDb, the website itself) or don't provide significant coverage of the website itself. Pichpich (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain further how it's "non-notable" and the sources that are referred at are unreliable. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Found this through the recommendation for edits. It does appear that there's some references back to the site's content available in scholarly articles. I found them through the link above. But I'm unsure if these would assist.

Tthere does appear to be some level of significance compared to a small blog/something similar that has no in-text references.

Also re: the conflict of interest, was not aware the this could Crete an issue. I will therefore discontinue edits on this article. Apologies for confusion. I appear to have been logged in under my phone account to make this comment. Cjt199677 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 22:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

In my opinion, this article failed WP:NTSR. Google search finds nothing. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't think this article "Razel Street" should be deleted because according to me, it suits the purpose of a short description. However, I hope to add more details to it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akopoly (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 22:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:FILM and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Coverage is almost all trivial and small. All of the sources in the article just talk about a film he funded and stared in. Reviewed all the sources and almost all of them are short passing mentions of his film or him being made fun of online.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Right Rasta No Doesn't appear to be a news org No Site looks like a spam site, just lists infomation about Arul and is authored by admin Yes Arul is the only topic on the page ✘ No
India Posts English No Article reads like a promo, and authored by an AI No Does not appear to be any critical coverage or analysis ~ Article covers a film that Arul is in ✘ No
Times of India Yes Source is normally independent ~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional than critical ~ Article covers a film that Arul is in ~ Partial
India Glitz No Article reads like a promo ~ No author listed, reads like a promo No Short article about an upcoming movie ✘ No
Namaste India No Website appears to just be lists of people in India No No listed author or cited sources No Just a short couple paragraphs of facts about Arul ✘ No
India Herald No Article reads like a promo No No listed author or cited sources No Article covers a film that Arul is in ✘ No
India Herald No Article reads like a promo ~ Article talks about events that happened ~ Coverage of a promo for an upcoming film ✘ No
ABP Live ? ? No Just a collection of photos of Arul ✘ No
India Glitz No Article reads like a promo ~ No author listed, reads like a promo No Short article about an upcoming movie ✘ No
India Glitz No Article reads like a promo ~ No author listed, reads like a promo No Short article about an upcoming movie ✘ No
The Hindu Yes Source is considered independent Yes Author listed, review of film goes in depth No Movie review, not an in-depth interview of Arul ✘ No
Economic Times/India Times Yes Source is normally independnt No No author listed, only talks about the number of places a movie is being shown No Article is about a movie not Arul ✘ No
Hans Times No Article is a short listing of facts about Arul No No author listed, reads like a promo No Article is about Arul but the coverage is trivial in nature ✘ No
onmanorama ? Couldn't determine Yes Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact ~ Coverage is about Arul traveling to a state in India to promote his film ? Unknown
OTTPlay No Reads like a promo article No Short article about Arul's dream of being in movies ~ Coverage is trivial at best. ✘ No
onmanorama ? Couldn't determine Yes Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact ~ Coverage is about Arul traveling to a state in India to promote his film ? Unknown
OTTPlay No Reads like a promo article No Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact ~ Coverage is about Arul joining twitter ✘ No
News 18 ~ Appears to be independent for non-entertainment news such as this article ~ Staff author and short article but appears to be based in fact No Short article about how Arul was at an event promoting his movie ✘ No
Tollywood No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release ~ Republication of a press release ✘ No
Times of India Yes Source is normally independent ~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional in nature ~ Article covers a film that Arul is in ~ Partial
Pink Villa No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release ~ Republication of a press release ✘ No
Times of India No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release ✘ No
Astro Ulagam ? Can not access ? Can not access ? Can not access ? Unknown
Kalakkal Cinema No Reads like a promo article, most of the website is the same ~ Authored by a staff writer and sounds more promotional in nature No Passing mention of Arul ✘ No
Mirchi9 No Doesn't appear to be a reliable news or industry org. Reads more like a fancy blog. No sources cited or analysis done. Authored by staff writer, maybe. ~ Article mentions that Arul is rich, was made fun of online, and a song in his film had 100 dancers. No really that's all this article says. ✘ No
Lehren No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release No Republication of a press release ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Dr vulpes 19:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Google search doesn't reveal very much. This fails GNG and WP:NBAND in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

It looks quite the same as previous versions of "Tunisia national football team", before I (copy)edited it. The history section is about the same length as it was in the main article's previous versions. It also has other sections from the main Tunisia team article. It's supposed to focus on the history of the team. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. It's a Weak Keep, but Keep it is. Liz 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

High energy physicists can be very hard to evaluate in terms of citation count, because LHC papers can have literally thousands of authors, and high citation rates for those papers don't necessarily confer notability on author number seven hundred and twenty three. I don't think this guy meets any of the OTHER WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD because I'd like to hear other opinions. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The large-collaboration papers don't give him independent notability as a member of their groups. Their citation counts show that the collaborations are notable but I don't think they contribute at all to Pruneau's notability. But we can still look at the remaining papers where he is first author. I found:
    • "Methods for the study of particle production fluctuations" (1st of 3 authors; 291 citations)
    • "Multiplicity fluctuations in Au+Au collisions..." (1st of 4 authors; 167 citations)
    • "Transverse radial flow effects on two-and three-particle angular correlations" (1st of 3 authors; 70 citations)
    • "New and improved phoswich detectors manufactured by a heat press technique" (1st of many authors; 34 citations)
This looks like a very weak case for WP:PROF#C1. I also found two published book reviews for his textbook Data Analysis Techniques for Physical Scientists, not enough for WP:AUTHOR by themselves, but strengthening the overall case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Tehran#Main entrance. Liz 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

No reason why the university's entrance merits a standalone article. A paragraph in the university's article suffices Mooonswimmer 16:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW delete. North America 15:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

In my opinion, failed WP:NTSR. Google search finds up nothing. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. North America 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Struggling to find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Even an Indonesian source search failed to yield any significant coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone 12:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to BGYO. RL0919 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Gelo Rivera is a member of BYGO, which is the subject of the vast majority of the coverage presented in this article - and not Rivera himself. The balance of sources are interviews and even a fashion shoot. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. I'd have redirected but for the 100% certainty that would be reverted. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  • Huferpad talk 06:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Lack of notability  • Huferpad talk 11:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked yet but I don't think an athletic trainer who was at the best-ever Juventus, at the FIFA World Cup-winning Italy and at Tottenham could lack of notability. Dr Salvus 11:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly, consensus will not develop to delete this. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Recording by US rapper Mike, fails WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG - tried redirecting to Mike article but reverted, so here we are. No chart placement, passing mentions in listicles, "multiple, non-trivial, published works" is not passed, neither is gold disc, notable award etc Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. North America 14:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter specifically states that database websites are not acceptable for notability purposes as they have very low standards for inclusion and do not provide significant prose coverage. Searching in multiple search engines, I could find nothing other than database websites and Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. Spiderone 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. North America 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Only 2 sources in the article, one of which is to a wikipedia page, while the other doesn't mention the subject at all. Couldn't find other sources to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Pls don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThenmozhiRs (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable director. Sources cited don't provide significant coverage of him as a person, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Therefore fails WP:GNG, and no evidence of WP:FILMMAKER notability either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 06:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:FILMMAKER. No notabilty as a filmmaker - no enduring impact, awards, major releases. Coverage presented all incidental, passing, local or owned media. Previously deleted for notability, should be so again. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 06:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

There is very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The article is written like an advertisement and there are no sources in the article. From what I can tell, there is no substantive coverage in RS. Thenightaway (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 06:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS, they have not won a major award, are not highly cited, are not a named chair, are not the editor of a major journal, and are not elected to a major socalry society. Dr vulpes 07:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn by nominator Article has massively improved and I withdraw my nomination. Good work everyone glad we were able to make some really great improvements here. Dr vulpes 02:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep - I don't know if I can vote because I'm the creator of the article. Fatima Seedat is one of the most well known South African Muslim feminist academics along with Sa'diyya Shaikh, and one of the three most famous South African Muslim feminists with Sa'diyya Shaikh and Shamima Shaikh (who both have Wiki articles). She has a new edited volume coming out this year, The Women's Khutbah Book: Contemporary Sermons on Spirituality and Justice from Around the World (2022). She has two khutbahs in this book. She and Sa'diyya are heading a new masters in Islam, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Cape Town. Seedats work is discussed in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic law (2018), Queer Muslim diasporas in contemporary literature and film (2019), Women and Gender in the Qur'an (2020), Peaceful Families: American Muslim Efforts against Domestic Violence (2019), Muslim Women and Gender Justice: Concepts, Sources, and Histories (2019), Routledge Handbook of Islam in the West (2022), and The Routledge Global History of Feminism (2022). Her work must be reasonably influential to be cited in Routledge and Oxford reference texts on Islam or feminism. These are major books by famous academic publishers and well-known Islamic studies academics such as Celene Ibrahim and Juliane Hammer. These are all recent citations.
She is cited in Veiled Superheroes: Islam, Feminism, and Popular Culture (2017) by Sophia Rose Arjana, Divine Words, Female Voices: Muslima Explorations in Comparative Feminist Theology (2018) by Jerusha Lamptey, and Islamic Feminism and the Discourse of Post-Liberation: The Cultural Turn in Algeria (2020) by Marnia Lazreg. Again, well-known Islamic studies scholars.
She has a chapter in Surfacing: On Being Black and Feminist in South Africa (2021). She is one of two non-Black/coloured women featured along with Sa'diyya, which must indicate some importance given how many other women could have been featured. The other contributors include Panashe Chigumadzi, Sisonke Msimang, Zoë Wicomb, Yewande Omotoso, Gertrude Fester, Zethu Matebeni, Zukiswa Wanner, Makhosazana Xaba,Yvette Abrahams, and Patricia McFadden. Almost all the women in this volume have Wiki articles. They are major SA feminists indicating Sadat is considered one as well, so she's logically worthy then of a Wiki entry.
The book Complexities of Spiritual Care in Plural Societies discusses her work as an imam. It's extremely rare for a woman to act as an imam or give a khutbah. I don't know of any other book that has collected women's khutbahs. It is literally the first of its kind. Other women who have acted as imams like amina wadud, Edina Leković, Raheel Reza, Halima Krausen, and Sherin Khankan have Wiki entries.
It's the nature of her being from a non-Western nation and working in a subset of an already small field that she just won't have as many citations as, say, an American economist. However, her article "Islam, feminism, and Islamic feminism: Between inadequacy and inevitability" has 112 citations on Google scholar. When Islam and Feminism Converge has 77 on Google Scholar. Zaynab1418 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Her article "Islam, feminism, and Islamic feminism" is also translated into Indonesian published as a book, Islam Feminisme dan Islam Feminis translated by Dhika Marcendy. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • keep per explanations i read above, and references present in the article the subject is notable. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not convinced about her notability based on the sources. I've consulted an academic in a closely related field for a "gut feel" on this one before I consider the sources and vote, but I doubt she meets WP:GNG. We may need to look to WP:ACADEMIC and look for better sources. Another thing to keep in mind is WP:OTHER and WP:INN: we can't justify the existence of this article based on the fact that other similar articles exist. Park3r (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    As the creator of the article, if it's ultimately decided she is not notable, then I want to ask for it to be moved into the draft space. She has a new book coming out, she is fairly young, and her citations are very recent. Zaynab1418 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable school. Sources cited do not provide sigcov of the school, and a search finds nothing more than the usual social media accounts, directory listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Among the arguments grounded in policy, there was consensus that the sourcing was sufficient to show the subject's notability. Xymmax So let it be done 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant BIO as one can be. ౪ Santa ౪ 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • There does seem to be some mainstream news coverage. Can we check if this person gets significant coverage in any secondary sources, something analyzing their activities beyond the circumstances of death? The article seems to be burying the lede, talking about early and late life, but almost nothing about the middle, which is supposed to be the main claim to notability. --Joy (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I have never heard of this person in my life, so I tried to find something on him beyond reports of his traffic accident. Nothing. It seems that accident is the only reason in the first place why he found the way into media. It's sort of, this locally know reckless driver finally meat his maker, and here who he was. Standard eulogy for anons. Or maybe I am wrong.--౪ Santa ౪ 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    He is mentioned by secondary sources too. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22jusuf+barcic%22&btnG=. He is known for being a religous leader of many wahabbis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Anyone familiar with the movement heard about him, as he was among the early ones, a pioneer so to say. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I checked six or seven (top to bottom - of course I skipped known "experts", lunatics like Tanasković, Nogradi, etc.) and found that he is still mentioned in passing, without information, whatsoever, on what that guy wanted, why is he significant if at all. So, he was an adherent of Salafism, and allegedly leader of a group, so what? What group, how big, what the group wanted is, of course, completely lacking in all papers that I checked. Why should anonymous adherent of Salafi Islamic sect be more relevant for English Knowledge (XXG) from, say, any ultra-conservative and radical sect in Christianity, just because he is mentioned in passing in some papers. ౪ Santa ౪ 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Bottom line for his relevancy, something which could reasonably make him relevant for English Knowledge (XXG): is this person proven recruiter of Muslims for any of the wars in the Middle East, or responsible for or significantly connected (not guilty by superficial association) to some violent terrorist act anywhere? If not, he is completely irrelevant for our project. ౪ Santa ౪ 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    You reffering to someone as lunatic is enough for me. You're arguments aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, lunatic fringe is: the members of a political or social group or movement who have the most extreme or foolish ideas ౪ Santa ౪ 22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    Nobody can be really sure they're not part of the group themselves. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    You can check them yourself, and tell what you have found out. ౪ Santa ౪ 11:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the arguments brought by the nominator aren't serious enough. --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Irrelevant person. If he can get article, than you can make thousand more for various youtube guru's. --Mhare (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    He wasn't a YT guru, but a person regarded as the founder of the Salafist movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a guy you can find a lot about from bunch of scholarly works spaning from 1988 to present. YT gurus don't have such notoriety. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    There is no "movement" in B-H, nor anywhere else, nothing to create - you are either adherent/follower or not - Salafism is very concretely defined and you can inform yourself in our article about it, or about Salafism in B-H through one of sources in this one, Czech researcher Zora Hesová. There is nothing inherently noteworthy or sinister in it, unless individual decide to get violent criminal or terrorist in order to impose his worldview on others. He could have been preacher, or more precisely, as Mhare, said YouTube Salafi guru. ౪ Santa ౪ 10:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Why it should be sinister? Its a noteworthy religious movement. Also, YT gurus have their articles - PewdiePie comes to mind. Also, Barčić died long before YT was a thing, but whatever. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Content in this article has everything to do with cleanup and improvement. Santasa99, could you please tell me how does the subject fail GNG or any relevant subjective criteria. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    We have nothing on this person regarding his career and activities which would made him relevant for the project - unless someone believes that being adherent of Islam and follower of Salafi sect is inherently significant for the English Knowledge (XXG). By thorough cleanup of this article buried in lede, we would be left with an obituary to anonymous.౪ Santa ౪ 10:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is just your bias, the article has all what it needs. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are probably thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Salafi communities around the world, with each, or at least most, having a more or less charismatic preacher as a leader, are grouped in smaller or larger communities, more or less isolated from wider society, etc. Are they all due for their own standalone article, or we need to establish some significance in their existence, beyond the superficial passing mention in barely few secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪ 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    There are enough sources. He didn't establish just any "Salafi" community, the secondary sources are good evidence for that. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Daft AfD for subject with clear notability case for their role in Islamism in the Balkans - has dozens of scholarly mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Since when is Salafi religious fundamentalism equal Islamism? Who labels him as Islamist? Further, as I see the WP:Notability and WP:GNG we still need "Significant coverage", not passing mention - by the way, sources are good and independent, but they do not delve into Barcic persona and career as they should if we are to establish notability for standalone, mentions are anecdotal and superficial. I still wonder how many of people like this person could get their standalone article then, simply for being leaders of a village of 100 uneducated Salafi adherents, and/or caused a stir and commotion around a mosque that kicked them out. I mean, we have an article on fundamentalists like Kevin Swanson, but with him hangs half of United States conservative establishment, and he fills columns from Washington state to Finland, our guy here hangs with no one and fills only couple of those (online) tabloids in generally not so friendly countries to Bosnian Muslims, Serbia and Croatia. ౪ Santa ౪ 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Islamist because he sought to impose his religious preferences, reject secular institutions and install rule by sharia law - that's pretty much the working definition of Islamism. The subject is mentioned in numerous reliable, secondary scholarly works. That is amply notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    I did not find any one of these sources labels him Islamist, while your definition of Islamism is more than just reductive, and in case of this person simply not used by scholarship cited in article. As far as I was able to read through the papers, nobody gave any description in relation to him which fits our Islamism article definition. Every mosque and every Muslim community on the planet function upon Sharia jurisprudence, there is nothing mythical nor sinister about it. He rejected secularism and went to live life of Salafi preacher based on Sharia in the forest with 50-60 of his followers. All we have in these papers about that is anecdotal passing mention, without in-depth description about his agency and its extent - he had no political organization to voice his worldview, no access to mosques, and I bet he didn't live long enough to start exploiting YouTube. If every fringe guru from every god forsaken mountain with a YouTube account deserves an article, we would bury our project with them. Indonesia has 230 million Muslims and innumerable Salafi adherents, one major sectarian war and at least one major Islamist militia, and we have one article on a person, a leader of who knows how many Salafis under arms - in contrast we have three articles on village gurus roaming rural Bosnia, who in the last 30 yrs. were able to bring under their sway few hundreds of uneducated youths mostly with a criminal record. What's the point, am I missing something? ౪ Santa ౪ 11:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Barčić isn't so isignificant as you think. The sources mention him as a person who fundamentaly shaped the Salafist community in BiH. The Salafist community in Bosnia and Herzegovina is itself a noteworthy phenomenon that needs to be explained on Knowledge (XXG) as well. Not only that, but as a sort of a pionir of the movement in BiH, he is mentioned by the sources, as a person who shaped also his "successors" Nusret Imamović and Bilal Bosnić, both of whom have their own respective articles here as well, and themselves are noteworthy. The mentions of him in the sources in questions aren't ancedotal, but well researched, as he is mentioned by notable researches from notable institutions, in a span from 1980s till the present day. That is not anectodal, and especially if the same facts were reported by many other scholarly sources. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Now, you're a consipracy theorist. And it's you who is actually biased here, claiming that only because some of the sources are based in Croatia or Serbia, that they're anti-Bosnian Muslim. That's why your objections aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to an array of sources covering "Jusuf Barcic", there are just as many under the alternative name "Yusuf Barčić". Jusuf was a significant leader in the Salafist/Wahhabi movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina so I do not understand why he would be considered an insignificant figure. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    How is he significant, what was he saying, writing (if at all), preaching, who influenced him and how, whom he influenced and how. Is he significant solely for being leader of Bosnian rag-tag group or was he a more than just that and how. Was he Modernist Salafi, Enlightened Salafi, was he purists, activists, jihadists. Article is grown paragraph or two since nomination, mostly through info repetition. This project lacks articles on leaders and authors the likes of Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif, but we have several Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers, based on passing mention in several essays and papers on Bosnian group of couple of hundreds, not on any individual person. (It's like writing an article on local plum-brandy maker while lacking article on Pasteur. GNG says "significant" not any passing mention.) ౪ Santa ౪ 19:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    This all reads like opinion. Significance is determined by a presence in multiple reliable, secondary sources. That's it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    If you think the project is missing articles like "Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif", stop wasting time here and go create them. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, you are misinterpreting our core policy, which you can read as senior editor: GNG does not says that significance is established through sheer number of passing mention, it is actually state that significant mention is required if we want to establish notability. I find it disconcerting when senior editors try to misinterpret project's core policy. ౪ Santa ౪ 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    Dozens of scholarly mentions is not "a trivial mention" and your refusal to recognise this is becoming disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    Number of mentions is trivial, if substance in those mentions is trivial. By the way, now you are obviously misquoting me as well - I said "passing mention" in sources, no matter how many one find is not enough to establish notability, GNG requires significant mention, and then writers of that core policy give us example what they had in mind - you are senior editor of 8 yrs of experience and 19 thousands of edits, so you better go on and read it yourself. Otherwise, you put yourself into situation where your persistence on notability of person like this makes no sense. ౪ Santa ౪ 08:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    Bla bla bla. This single source alone is a significant mention. So is this. So is this. As you have made plain, your reason for this nomination is a prejudice against encyclopedic articles on "Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers". Not your call to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is still scope under ARBEE so please tone down your discussion. ౪ Santa ౪ 08:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Bla, bla, bla is not response I would expect from editor of your experience. Since we have trouble interpreting policies on establishing notability, I will quote here most basic parts:
Most crucial parts of WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC can be read here (bold emphasis is mine)
  1. WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  1. Notability of people specific guideline WP:NBASIC - People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.
Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not.
--౪ Santa ౪ 08:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Yep. The key part your are failing to read over and over again is: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This subject has more than "a trivial mention" in multiple scholarly sources, ergo job done, ergo stop wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
So? And how am I failing if I quoted it? ౪ Santa ౪ 09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV from all appearances. The article is cited to several off-line books which appear to have significant coverage of the subject. The nominator has provided no source analysis, and we reasonably have no reason to believe that these sources aren't significant per WP:AGF, Knowledge (XXG):Offline sources, and WP:Verifiability. In short, I am not seeing anything but a personally biased rationale for deletion, rather than a policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that the content as it exists has problems with original research, and is not suitable as it stands. There are also reasonable concerns being raised that the topic isn't treated as a coherent whole by reliable sources, and as such isn't suitable for a standalone article at all; however, this issue was not discussed in detail. I have no objections to providing a draftspace copy, but only in the understanding that it will not be moved to mainspace by the main author. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

This article reads like an opinion piece in article space. It has twice been moved from article space to draft space, by User:Praxidicae and User:Bonadea. Both times the author has moved the article back to article space without attempting to discuss with the reviewers. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page (which was the draft talk page when the article was a draft). Maybe the author has a non-neutral point of view, since the topic is one in which a non-neutral point of view is at least as likely as a COI. The article consists in large part of excerpts from main articles, and that content will not be lost by deletion. Other than that, the introductory paragraphs are opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep
@Robert McClenon Hello. I'm curious if your perspective of the article "reading like an opinion piece" is one you get directly from reading the article, or if it's entirely anchored by the comments the reviewers left.
The article has undergone substantial modifications since each comment- after each comment it was modified to address the concerns of the reviewer. I doubt you'd be of the same perspective if you were reading the article unbiased by reviews of earlier versions.
The reviewers left messages on my Talk page - I replied to these messages explaining my perspective. I also left a message on User:Bonadea's Talk page, with no response.
Admittedly I am relatively new to Knowledge (XXG), and this is my first article from scratch - I've made edits on a number of existing pages, but this is my first time trying to get a piece from scratch into the main article space. Maybe I should also have been posting messages on the article's Talk page - that seems like something important. I'm curious however why the reviewers didn't voice their concerns on the Talk page though - they're obviously more experienced than I am with Knowledge (XXG), so I imagine if they knew article Talk page discussions were important they would initiate them.
About the Actual idea behind the article: Violent Extremism in West Africa is one coherent problem. The fundamental motivation for starting this article in the first place, is to emphasise that the instances of terrorism in the region are simply symptoms of one overall issue. Your observation that the piece contains excerpts from other articles is accurate. However these other articles treat the instances of terrorism as being separate and possibly independent. This is false and misleading, and could possibly stymy attempts to understand the issue at its source.
This VICE News article provides a very insightful analysis of extremism in West Africa as one coherent problem - not as scattered instances of unrelated terrorism. This specific insight is what I find missing from all existing Knowledge (XXG) articles on the general topic, and that was my motivation for writing this piece.
Yes I moved the piece back to article space - Usually this was after multiple messages to the reviewer - on my Talk page, on theirs, with no response. In my experience, moving a piece back into article space (after modifying it based on the reviewer's comments) is the most effective way to get perspective on it. Knowledge (XXG) reviewers are evidently more motivated to screen new pieces in the article space, than they are to give perspective on drafts. It's frustrating to think a draft has to wait 4+ months in the AfC space after each resubmission. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Violent extremism. No other part of the world has such detailed treatment on the subject. The main article should be expanded first, before developing a sub-article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Tamedu quaternion - First, to answer your question about whether I stated that the article read like an opinion piece based on reading the article or on reading the reviewers' comments, I read the article and was commenting on the article, and concurred with the comments of the other reviewers. Your question is insulting, but I have answered it as if it were a reasonable question. I read all three versions of the article, and it was my opinion that the changes that you made did not materially address the comments of the reviewers. You were evidently trying to guess what the reviewers meant, and were trying to make an optimistic guess; sometimes that isn't the best approach. Second, it is true that articles are reviewed more quickly in article space than in draft space. The actual average review time is much less than 3 or 4 months. There is a difference between the mean or mode of a distribution and the maximum of a distribution. One difference between review of an article that is moved into article space and a draft is that review of an article that was previously draftified is likely to result in its deletion. You were move warring. At this point, I don't plan to comment on the content of the article, since you have insulted the reviewers and the review process. This is not a good way to start as a Knowledge (XXG) editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon I'm sorry if you found some of my comments offensive. That was not my intention- I have absolutely nothing to gain from insulting anyone on here - so far I've just been giving my perspective and detailing my experience here editing Knowledge (XXG).
    So far I've found Knowledge (XXG) reviewers more eager to shut down ideas without regard for my feelings, than to offer constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. There also tends to be the tendency for groupthink, where reviewers agree with earlier reviewers/admins without trying to really see things for themselves and get their own opinion on a piece. I've experienced that in waaay more intensity on German Knowledge (XXG), but I feel like it might also exist here to some extent.
    All of that definitely influences the tone of voice I use here - If you find it somewhat abrasive, then I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention, I'm just responding to the environment.
    --
    About the reviewers' comments, something that repeatedly comes up involves how "encyclopaedic" the piece is (or rather is not). Someone in the help channel suggested that I restrict the scope of the article to the 21st century, and I modified the article title accordingly. It made a lot of sense, and that way the piece wasn't claiming to give a comprehensive historical discourse on the topic.
    You mention that I seem to have been guessing what the reviewers meant in their comments. I'm curious what you mean by this, and I'm very open to have you further break down the parts of their feedback I don't seem to be sensitised to. Some concerns I feel I have addressed- like a relative lack of citations, and recentism. More Knowledge (XXG)-specific attributes like "being encyclopaedic" are notions I'm completely open to learning about and obtaining feedback on.
    --
    About review times, the article had spent about three months as a draft before I made the first page move into article space. When it was reverted to a draft, it spent close to a month there. I didn't see any obvious signs that it would be reviewed any more quickly than the first time.
    In both instances I got a reviewer to provide perspective on the article within hours of moving it into article space. In one case I got feedback in fifteen minutes. Moving the article just seemed like a much more effective way to get perspective on it.
    --
    Again I'm sorry if you found some of my words offensive - that is in no way my intention. I am very open to learning and receiving helpful feedback, and I do hope we can have a productive and enlightening discussion, thanks. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion in case other editors think there is content that should be Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • (weak) Merge to Violent extremism to be the most appropriate solution. There are sources which indicate the notability of the phenomenon specifically in West Africa, but a brief section in the main article will probably suffice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    This article conflates violent extremism with counter-terrorism policy and conflates geographic regions. The article mixes sources which speak of the Sahel (some of which is in West Africa and some not), Coastal West Africa (so a part of West Africa, but not West Africa) and West Africa. Also note the use of sources considered unreliable. I do not see what is salvageable here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    At the very least, a list could be added to the main article with entries of movements described as "violent extremism" by reliable sources. Beyond that, I would have to take a closer look. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Goldsztajn Hello- I feel there are issues with your understanding of West African geography which mislead your inferences. You think of these geographical regions (Sahel, Coastal West Africa, West Africa) as being way more distinct and way less inter-related/synonymous than they really are.
    The article talks about how extremist groups from the Sahel are pervading countries in West Africa. It's one problem - it's one fundamental brand of extremism - there's no way to discuss extremism in West Africa without talking about the Sahel. That's like talking about eg Turkish migration into Western Europe without discussing Turkey itself, or countries in between.
    Your perspective that "Coastal West Africa is a part of West Africa, but not West Africa" is just wrong. About eighty to ninety percent of countries in "Coastal West Africa" also extend upwards into more central West Africa. You could take a look at Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, etc.
    A country like Mali also happens to be about equally spread out between the Sahel and more central West Africa. You cannot speak of these regions as being so distinct when a lot of countries overlap across them.
    And then do you mind shedding some light on what cited sources are "considered unreliable"? I'm curious what sources you're referring to. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Youtube is self published, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice News. The article mixes sources that cover different regions/subregions. There's plenty of sources on counter-terrorism in ECOWAS; that would be a far more appropriate subject for an article, that could be reliably sourced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and strongly oppose merge per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The article is full of original synthesis, original research, and is supported by self published materials like youtube. Given the inherent problems in the article, there is nothing of value to preserve and merge. Merging would only negatively impact the article on violent extremism by introducing non-verifiable content.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is mostly about disparate events in different countries in West Africa. The sources that link it all together as one idea are either a) sources that probably don't meet WP:V (like the YouTube links) or b) sources about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy. This isn't enough to justify a separate article. There might be an argument for having an article about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy but that content would probably be better suited for the actual ECOWAS article, which currently has no information on this. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 06:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources found and no mention of the subject at the single listed source. 0xDeadbeef 05:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 05:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable and fails WP:NSCHOOL. Refs are non-independent or trivial, the news announcements on coronavirus cases are routine, not SIGCOV, and violates WP:NOTNEWS. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

These violate WP:NOTNEWS IMHO and constitute as routine announcements failing WP:NORG, could you find more? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/west-bengal/29-students-test-positive-in-nadia-jawahar-navodaya-vidyalaya/cid/1844603?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D# Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete. It's a school, and it had a COVID outbreak. It's mentioned incidentally in routine news coverage of one of thousands of COVID outbreaks. But it's not notable – see WP:SCHOOL and WP:NOTNEWS, unless it becomes a significant story for some other reason. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I've gone through the sources in the article and precisely zero of them appear to contribute towards corporate notability:

NCORP table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
GRUNGECAKE's website
 No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent Moot as clearly non-independent
Unclear. This might be a press release that was regurgitated by multiple newspapers (see link to Nigeria's The Guardian below) NPP source guide says reliable, though this story doesn't exactly have a byline and reads almost as if a press release No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes why not?
Yes It appears so. Yes Why not? No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes why not?
Yes I think so? Yes NPP Source guide says reliable No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes why not?
Unclear. This might be a press release that was regurgitated by multiple newspapers (see first link to The Vanguard of Nigeria above) Yes NPP source guide says reliable No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes why not?
Yes I think so? Yes why not? No GRUNGECAKE is trivially mentioned in ~2 sentences. Yes why not?
Yes I think so? Yes Why not? No GRUNGECAKE is trivially mentioned in passing. Yes why not?
No Per WP:ORGIND, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Yes This is a raw transcript with an interview of GRUNGECAKE's founder. It's probably faithful to the words of that interview. – There's some discussion of GRUNGECAKE that borders on being significant coverage No This is a raw interview, which is definitionally a primary source.
Yes I think so, though I'm skeptical w.r.t. the independence of the content. Yes NPP Source guide says this is a reliable newspaper No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes why not?
No There's issues with the independence of the content given the long interview with a non-WP:ORGIND party. They also appear to have sponsored the group by giving them a free camera and then interviewing them after the fact. No This is the blog of a camera manufacturer, which is certainly not a WP:NEWSORG. Yes GRUNGECAKE is certainly discussed significantly. – The vast majority of the coverage of GRUNGECAKE comes from verbatim responses in an interview, which is a primary source. The opening paragraph *might* be secondary coverage.
Yes Seems to be independently written Yes Seems like a WP:NEWSORG No Grungecake gets trivially mentioned in about two sentences. The coverage is so brief that it's not clear that there's a way to do primary vs secondary source analysis
Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No The coverage of GRUNGECAKE as a company/platform is trivial in light of WP:ORGDEPTH. Yes Some of the coverage appears to be secondary.
No This appears to be based off a press release and not rewritten, which would impair independence in light of WP:ORGIND Yes why not? No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. No This appears to be a regurgitation of primary source material rather than secondary coverage
No This appears to be based off a press release and not rewritten, which would impair independence in light of WP:ORGIND Yes Why not? No While there is coverage of the founder of GRUNGECAKE, Per WP:ORGDEPTH, Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties ...for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Knowledge (XXG) article on the product or the CEO. Coverage of GRUNGECAKE itself, as a company/platform, is minimal. Yes Why not?

Additionally, I'm also not able to find WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage of GRUNGECAKE form multiple independent RS after conducting an online search. Richardine Bartee, its founder, does appear to have an article, so I propose that this be blanked and redirected to her article, where the topic can be adequately covered. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep it took me a while to read and understand Knowledge (XXG), The website is Grammy recognized and owned by a recording academy board member. The sites has been covered in reliable sources and doesn’t need a very long article for confusion to pass Knowledge (XXG) GNG, the site was recognized in 2020 as the number 3 site to find new hip hop music and that is a sure time pass. I don’t just create articles, I read this Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide very well before starting to create this article. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 06:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

A classic (old) fictional character from manga/anime, but with no evidence of notability. No reception or creation sections, just a plot summary and a list of appearances in non-independent spin-offs or such. My BEFORE failed to find anything of relevance. Ja wiki entry is not offering any analysis, reception, or such. PS. A soft-delete-friendly option of redirecting this to List_of_Saint_Seiya_characters#Saori_Kido without "hard deleting" the history can be considered. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

soft delete seems the way to go. Moka38 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'd also note that the arguments here are essentially the same as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) which saw wider participation. Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Same reasons as Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia). Unnecessary fork with an inherent likelihood of turning into a POV fork, and makes maintenance difficult. Best to keep it within existing articles. Panam2014 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it "way" too soon? Super Ψ Dro 08:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Merge with Donetsk People's Republic. I refer to my !vote in the discussion about Kherson Oblast for the reasoning. In short, a case of WP:TOOSOON, but when independent coverage about DPR as a federal subject appears, I'm fine with recreation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly a notable entity, widely discussed in many sources, regardless of whether it ever actually functions. Furius (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep The (illegal) existence of such a republic in Russia is a fact, the existence of such a page does not legitimize it in any way, so deletion is absolutely unnecessarily. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep all other (claimed or legal) regions under Russia have their own page, including the others annexed by Russia, no need to delete this. See Crimea, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Luhansk.Yeoutie (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep Russia has already officialised the DNR — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It does not exist as a specified territory with defined and stable borders. First, Russia made it bigger during the war, then Ukraine forces made it smaller just a few days ago, after taking Lyman. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION 05:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete replace the infobox in Donetsk People's Republic with the Russian territory article Mhatopzz (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The other three articles—Kherson Ob. Ru, Zapo Ob. Ru, and Luhansk PR, RU—have all been deleted. We may as well delete this one to be consistent. The entity of "Donetsk PR, RU" should be mentioned inside of the existing article about the DPR separatist state. We need to restructure that article to reflect the new political status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

This crater on Ceres does not seem to be notable, while there is a bit more coverage floating about than the last batch I nominated, there still doesn't seem to be enough to cause a GNG pass. Of the three most promising Google Scholar results, this is just a one-sentence long caption, and while I can only see the abstracts of the other two sources, this is seemingly also a one-sentence caption, while this is slightly more extensive but still doesn't look like enough to contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think the Planetary Society or JPL sources provide significant coverage. The JPL source barely even talks about the crater at all, most of the article consists of generic information about the Dawn mission, and while the Planetary Society source is somewhat more detailed, it's still only a single paragraph of information, and I don't think there's enough there to be considered SIGCOV. That leaves only the Paskett source, which itself is questionable as to whether it provides SIGCOV, and by itself is not enough to pass WP:GNG in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly No consensus between those who believe WP:SIGCOV is now met through new sources and those editors who don't. I don't think relisting this discussion would resolve this difference of opinion on this article. Liz 04:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Article is unsourced and I couldn't find any coverage. Article was under PROD which was removed then readded by User:Anachronist who claims to have found sources and may have an argument for WP:DRAFTIFY. I didn't see any coverage so I'm personally leaning toward delete, but I'd like to hear them out first. Also pinging User:UtherSRG who initiated the PROD. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And a note for anyone searching that there are more results to be found under "Alice DiMicele" spelling. Page was recently moved from that spelling to the current one without discussion which I suspect might've been the wrong move just based on sheer number of results on Google and the Wayback Machine. QuietHere (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
According to her own website, the spelling is "Di Micele" (with space), but the Internet often removes the space, leading to both versions being visible in search results. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
my name on drivers license is spelled Di Micele for the record. I had know idea what a huge pain it would be for me... I might have used a stage name had I know this 35 years ago... but here we are and I'm still doing my thing. Alicedimicele (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Soft delete or draftify - I originally removed the prod and created this AFD page, which I subsequently deleted after I actually did find sources, and then I reverted my edit that had replaced the prod with the AFD tag in the article, which had the effect of restoring the prod.
    Plenty of newspaper sources here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Alice+Di+Micele%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks - although many of them are just announcements with a smattering of pieces giving significant coverage. Therefore, while I think the article is abysmal and qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state because it makes no credible assertion of significance, cites no independent sources, and fails to demonstrate any inclusion criterion in WP:MUSICBIO, I am no longer convinced that the subject isn't notable because independent coverage does exist. I wouldn't object to draftification. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    That list did provide this piece which is solid coverage, but that's it. There was one festival review where she got one sentence of praise, but otherwise it's all concert announcements without any prose about the subject. I'm still leaning on delete; not much point in draftifying without knowing there's enough coverage to actually save the article 'cause it won't pass notability in draft reviews. QuietHere (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - She's been around for a long time and seems to get a lot of gigs, because newspaper announcements of her local appearances are pretty prevalent. However, I can find very little substantial coverage of her career of the type that can build an encyclopedic article. She gets some minor coverage like this album review: , and this biographical intro: . Unfortunately I can't find anything truly reliable and significant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I PROD'd, because it was tagged as Speedy, but I couldn't justify under the CSD guidelines. I'm surprised this article has lasted for so many years without a deletion discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, though draftify would be a good option. I'm also the user who moved it to its current placement, based off of the edits on the topic's name and the edit comments about that (which cite the artist's own website). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The overall lack of coverage, relatively obscure starting point and external references build a decent-enough case as things currently stand, but what really stands out to me is the lack of any holistic significance that would be beneficial in an encyclopedic format. Regardless of whether garnering attention plays into any of the already-noted sources, the sheer fact that most pieces are mere announcements of the subject's existence - nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing of use apart from compiling a loose list of appearances - justify the negligibility of the page's creation in the first place. Without any significant value as a page, there's no legitiamte reason I can find to justify its existence, either in the past or in the future. ^^ Anyone else? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and turn Mount Trumbull School, Arizona into a redirect. Liz 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

No evidence of a town or community here. The "populated place" description is sourced to GNIS and Hometown Locator which are not reliable for Feature Class designations. Reliable sources only discuss the historic schoolhouse which is covered at Mount Trumbull School, Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was 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 03:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

BLP of a successful businessman. Some of his companies may be notable but I don’t think there’s enough in the sources to sustain a biography. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was 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 03:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-notable boxer who won only state-level (New Jersey) titles as a pro and regional titles as an amateur. His most notable achievement was probably reaching the semifinals of the national Golden Gloves tournament in 2001. A search of Google and Newspapers.com yield no GNG-level coverage, just passing mentions. The only exception I was able to find, this, is not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 26th in the world bantamweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article are mostly routine coverage, and I failed to find anything significant to pass GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡ 02:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA, not surprising given a career record of 9 wins and 8 losses. The only sources I could find for him were MMA databases, fight results, and fight promotional articles. None of these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 28th in the world heavyweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant coverage through independent and reliable sources. ♡RAFAEL♡ 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and lost more fights than he won. I don't see any sources that clearly show significant independent coverage of him. I see database listings along with fight announcements and results, but that's true of any pro fighter. There's nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 02:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. There is no reliable coverage that I could find, including the sources already in the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:GNG. Article was created in 2007 and contains one external reference, a library maintained by the creator of the article. I can find no other mentions of this concept on the web, and it doesn't sound like any other design pattern I can think of, except maybe a bad explanation of dependency injection, which already has a much higher quality article. Also has a redirect pointing at it, Lazy Inheritance. 3mi1y (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

This was restored after a speedy deletion, but has no claims of notability. Original author has some notes in the talk for possible notability. UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn by nominator - I hadn't realized this had just been un-deleted and that the speedy notice that was on the article was a remnant of that un-deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I've quickly and easily expanded the article from a few simple Google searches. Next time, would be courteous to give an editor more than a few hours to expand an article following a speedy deletion restoration. And yes, as noted, I've shared on the article's talk page that The Oregonian has dozens of returns spanning decades. Subject seems obviously notable to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑