User:Sun Creator/AFD

User page	Talk Page	To Do List	INFO	AFD	Control Panel	More

Wikipedia guidelines Guidelines list Policies list Behavioral Assume good faith Conflict of interest Courtesy vanishing Disruptive editing Don't bite the newcomers Don't disrupt to make a point Etiquette Gaming the system User pages Other behavioral guidelines WMF friendly space policy Discussions Talk page guidelines Signatures Content Citing sources External links Reliable sources medicine Fringe theories Non-free content Offensive material Don't copy long texts Don't create hoaxes Patent nonsense Other content guidelines Editing Article size Be bold Understandability Other editing guidelines Categorization Categories, lists, templates Categorization Disambiguation Style Manual of Style contents lists tables Deletion Deletion process Speedy keep Deletion guidelines for administrators Project content Project pages WikiProjects Templates User pages User boxes Shortcuts Subpages Other Naming conventions Notability Search v t e

Conduct policies Block evasion Civility Clean start Consensus Dispute resolution Edit warring Editing policy Harassment No personal attacks Ownership of content Sockpuppetry Username policy Vandalism v t e Notability General notability guideline Subject-specific guidelines Academics Astronomical objects Books Events Films Geographic features Music Numbers Organizations and companies People Sports and athletes Web content See also Notability essays Guide to deletion Common deletion outcomes Why was my article deleted? v t e

Policies and guidelines (list) Principles Five pillars Ignore all rules Content policies Article titles Biographies of living persons Image use Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability What Wikipedia is not (Not a dictionary) Conduct policies Civility Clean start Consensus Dispute resolution Edit warring Editing policy Harassment No legal threats No personal attacks Ownership of content Username policy Vandalism Other policy categories Deletion Enforcement Legal Procedural Directories List of policies List of guidelines Manual of Style contents Searching v t e Checkuser pages Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted Clerk pages Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures Shortcut This page can be quickly accessed through: WP:RFCU/C/P

Common decisions and arguments Deletion (XfD) Arguments to avoid Common outcomes (AfD) Common outcomes (RfD) Common outcomes (TfD) Overcategorisation Perennial deletion review Adminship (RfA) and Bureaucratship (RfB) Arguments to avoid Arbitration (Arbcom) Guide to arbitration Principles Proposals and policy Perennial proposals v t e Deletion discussions Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article Articles today all (sorted) closing log Templates and modules today all closing holding Files today all closing Categories today all closing speedy working manual Redirects today all closing log Miscellany today all closing Speedy deletion candidates Proposed deletion all (sorted) BLPs Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines v t e

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL WP:NWP:CLSWP:LISTWP:RS

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      October 20 (Sun)      October 19 (Sat)      October 18 (Fri)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Ara Paiaya (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)

With persistent sockpuppetry and massive COI issues, I think it would be best to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know about the matter but the article seems to have no problems now (other than having basically no content). It's kind of already blown up/blanked and started over as far as I can tell. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: per Mrfoogles McYeee (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Blade Icewood (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:MUSIC with no notable discography or label activity. The only material in the article is about his death and useless content about feuding rap groups, with no viable coverage of his own music. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Michigan. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Great Regression (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)

Transparently political, wildly incorrect (wages have increased substantially since 1981). Lacks notability and appears to be a neologism. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Nyangon (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)

Promotional resume-style bio for a non-notable economist, repeatedly moved into mainspace by quickie-autoconfirmed accounts following declines at AfC. There is no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sources in the article are primarily the subject's own writings, plus WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios and a few low-quality promotional WP:CHURNALISM articles that appear to be based solely on interviews with the subject (see here, here; this one is explicitly marked as sponsored content). With a relatively low h-index for an economist at his stage of career, I don't see a pass of WP:NACADEMIC either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Aurélien Lechevallier (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Liberia. CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.
  

---

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,^[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.^[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.^[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,^[4] and here,^[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.^[6][7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).^[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

1. In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
2. Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
3. Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "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. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
4. Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

---

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Africa, Ghana, and Liberia. dxneo (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Giant walls of text just discourage participation from others. Both of you need to calm down and let others participate so we can come to a consensus on what to do. Editor(s) who wish to keep the article - can you please give a concise explanation of your WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The subject of this article meets criterion 1 and 2 of MUSICBIO. He is a Liberian artist who has received some coverage in Front Page Africa, which can be seen here, here and here. He has also recevied coverage in Pulse Nigeria, This Day newspaper, Vanguard, and in the BBC, despite the latter source being a primary source. Moreover, he has been discussed in the Lusaka Times and Nairobi News. He won and has been nominated for the MTN Liberia Music Awards, which is considered the biggest music award show in Liberia. He was nominated five times at the award's 2020 edition and won two awards in the 2023 edition. As previously stated, his song "Butta My Bread" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats song chart and the UK Afrobeats singles chart. Per this article, he is the first Liberian artist to gain global attention and is currently signed to Universal Music Group. Per the BBC article, his song "Butta My Bread" has received 160 million streams and is Liberia's biggest Afrobeats song. His song charting on two national music charts along with the sources I have mentioned here should be sufficient for a weak keep. Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDis_tortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Source assessment - Here you go, @Liz:. Would be happy to evaluate any additional source you feel is in dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
• All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
• FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
• BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
• Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
• Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
• Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
• BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
• FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real (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)

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1606) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Mughal Conquest of Mewar was a series of millitary campaigns whereas Battle of Dewair is a single battle. I don't see any reason to merge it with the latter. WP: REDUNDANTFORK applies for the same topic with different name. However, In this case the battle is a part of strings of event(Mughal Conquest of Mewar) through which Mewar concluded a treaty. Hence neither it should be deleted nor it should be merged. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about Mughals and Rajputs not Marathas! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Anna Cymmerman (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 tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note. I didn't realize there was an earlier nomination in 2009 when I made this nom. Apparently un-named sources were identified at an external website during that discussion. However, the web archive url isn't loading for me so I can't see what these are...4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Philip C. Pfeiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly referenced. Google doesn't turn up better sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Longbeach (cigarette) (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)

Because last AfD was two+ years ago and the redirect is contested, bringing it back here to see if consensus has changed. If it hasn't, recommend protecting of the redirect. I see nothing that approaches N:ORG level of coverage. Star Mississippi 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand. Star Mississippi 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Philip Morris International#Brands: The only coverage that I can see from independent sources is routine coverage. No change form the last AFD. Can we please protect the article at the end of the AFD if the result is redirect again. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Sources are either to her own website or a blog. A Google News search brings up literally no coverage about her aside from one or two blogs. Seems to mostly just be promotional as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Oh, Lord. Subject is completely non-notable and the article isn't even hiding the fact that it's promotional. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Bangalore Education Society, Malleswaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. One source is a directory listing, the other is not significant coverage of this school. Since the last AfD we are a lot more stricter on school notability. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NPOL Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: what about the Guardian reference? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment NPOL requires "significant" press coverage. Just one reference isn't enough for "significant." The Guardian is a reliable source, but not everybody who gets a story in the Guardian gets an article solely because they were mentioned in the Guardian.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)