Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 18	December 20 >

Guide to deletion

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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrowssapSMM 13:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen (salutation)

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

~~unsourced, pretty much a dictionary definition DrowssapSMM 23:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)~~ Withdraw, issues have been fixed. Thanks, DIVC. DrowssapSMM 13:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 23:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 04:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Keep since the article is now cited, and the article is now going into the significance of the salutation historically. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete -- Weak Keep -- The recent changes by Darcyisverycute just barely (imho) move this to the 'good' side of DICTDEF. There is just enough backgound and foundational info to make it 'more than'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) // Original: The article as it stands is a DICTDEF, but a future article could be created by someone knowledgeable in the field. The phrase has a storied history and has evolved over the last century. Without subject-matter expertise, however, there is virtually no method to research this. I know some of the that history and I can't even come up with WP:THREE. There just is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff in searching books, journals or other sources with two of the most common salutatory terms in the English language. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I believe that we should merge this article with Salutations, more specifically, be put under the English section Положение - Userpage 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 22:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge: Unsourced dicdef. Ping if sources found. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to DIVC. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found some sources and rewrote the article, I kindly ask participants in the AfD to examine and reconsider deletion. I cannot find citations supporting specific usage or the irreversible binomial nature in Vaudeville material, so I have removed these statements that would be otherwise unsourced, with no prejudice to adding the statements back at a later date if sources can be found (likely WP:OFFLINE). @Queen of Hearts Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Milan

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

Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This article is based on 1 lone primary source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't meet the GNG. There is only once source cited, and that source isn't independent of the subject itself. If the author believes the subject can meet the GNG, please find additional coverage in independent suitable sources as per policy and demonstrate why this particular consulate is notable enough. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any SIRS sources. Ping if sources found. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — GNG not satisfied. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG --Artene50 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the United States. No GNG, but a redirect may be warranted. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HD Pentax-D FA 645 35mm F3.5 AL (IF)

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

No evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a product directory. PROD was contested claiming WP:SIGCOV in cited source, but I'm not seeing it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One product review isn't notability. All I can find now are blog posts and stuff from the manufacturer. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any SIRS sources. Ping if sources found. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ariadaha#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadaha Kalachand High School

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to show that this school is notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The referencing shows nothing. Schools are no longer inherently notable. There must be something of particular verifiable notability for this to remain here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum redirect to Ariadaha#Education, the area in which the school is located as an AtD if sources deemed insufficient to support notability for a separate article; the school's already listed there. Possible merge of some of the school's history. As the first AfD showed there are news sources about the cutting of pupils' hair as a disciplinary measure in 2022.[1] Coverage is Kolkata-wide and may amount to state-wide but it's questionable whether this meets what's suggested by prominent scandal of WP:NGO. In any case the event by itself is not sufficient to meet notability for the school under NORG or GNG. The sources in the article are school listing websites and the school's own website, which have no bearing on notability, although taking into account the age of the school there may be offline sources reporting for example, its centenary. Rupples (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak redirect: This is definitely an edge case, while the sources in the previous AfD are certainly something, I'm not sure that one incident is enough to pass NCORP or GNG. Redirect instead of delete per Rupples. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 03:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Derby Cup

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent coverage. A self-published book was published about the cup but that does not contribute to notability [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Floored nomination, this article is about a Cup, not a rivalry. If nominator wants to address the notability that's a different question. However, due to lacklustre nomination, I had a look at the article, but I shall say a rather weak keep, I could easily go the other way for delete, but there was enough citations and a tiny bit more online to suggest some notability, however mine is a very weak keep. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than being pedantic on whether it's a rivalry or a cup series between 2 teams, we should instead be focusing on WP:GNG, which this cup does not meet. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot‎. Now a redirect to WP:VARS. No prejudice against RfD. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:VARS

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

Having these cross-namespace redirects is a bad enough relic, but creating a disambiguation page for 5 such redirects which all point to the same page anyway, with a name (MOS:VARS) which is as far as I know not in use anywhere, only helps to clutter the search bar. Fram (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incomprehensible and unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think we need a redirect for this term. I wouldn't even mix the five of them up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. Never mind; this has been mooted by changing it to a redirect to WP:VARS, which is probably how I should have done this in the first place. As for the original nomination above, back when this was a DAB page: the entries don't all point to the same page; "clutter the search bar" seems to be a meaningless or at least inapplicable phrase; pretty much no page is in much if any use the moment it is created (and this AfD was opened almost instantly); and while DAB pages in pseudo-namespaces like "MOS:" that are not true namespace aliases like "WP:" are rare, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits them (especially for a pseudo-namespace created with affirmative consensus for it, as "MOS:" was, to stop hogging all the sensible/memorable "WP:" shortcut strings for MoS targets). So, this wasn't a stellar deletion nomination, but an WP:IDONTLIKEIT knee-jerk reaction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit clueless of people to have created an entire fake namespace in the encyclopaedia namespace when everything from WP:MOS/ENGVAR to WP:MOS/VAR has been there for the taking all along. Sub-pages work in the project namespace. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  [shrug] Wasn't my idea, and this isn't a referendum on a community decision dating to 2006. Given the lack of many if any notable real-world things with names that start with "MOS:", it's ultimately harmless. I would be more concerned about pseudo-namespace redirs that pretty much no one uses, yet which have an enormous possible number, e.g. "CAT:", "T:", "H:" (well, that one's pretty limited), and "P:" (see WP:NS#Pseudonamespaces). I can just imagine someone getting the idea in their head that every category should have a "CAT:Foobar" redirect for it, and so on. The "MOS:" ones are used all the time, but the others are just claptrap. Same with misspelled versions of the "MOS:" one, like "MoS:" and "Mos:"; we generally delete these at WP:RFD because they are disused clutter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donnell McNeilly

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable player JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I don't know if he will be notable in the future or not, draft for now for me. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Draftification or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Follett Corporation#Acquisitions. Consensus established not to retain, argument against merging presented, but redirect option seems best. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valore (company)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Nikolaih^☎️📖 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Education, Websites, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content as appropriate to wiki pages of acquiring companies. Frigyes06 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All but one source are primary and/or not independent of the company. A single secondary sources does not constitute significant coverage. Nothing to merge except one source. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources include press releases and no WP:RS that demonstrate SIGCOV. Formatting is poor.

PD Slessor (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Follett Corporation#Acquisitions, the company which now owns Valore and where it's already mentioned, if notability cannot be established. Sources in the article don't show notability under WP:SIRS criteria. There's a bit on the company here:[3] but otherwise I've found only press releases etc. Rupples (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell, Blount County, Alabama

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

This seems to be more of an area than a specific settlement. The maps show a few buildings but no concentration, and while there is a Hopewell Church nearby, it may just be coincidence as "Hopewell" is a common name for a Baptist church, and there's another in the county which attracts more Google attention due to its cemetery. About the only other things are references to it as an area. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, pre-2021-feature-code-squashing the GNIS feature code was … drumroll … "locale", so Wikipedia is lying about places to the world again. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "lying", the local county newspaper refers to Hopewell as a community, regardless of whether it is notable. For some reason I got mad that you said Wikipedia is lying so I found those references. lol.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is, and it contains thousands of these lies. We had one that turned out to be stating the falsehood that a well in the middle of the Sonoran Desert was a populated place just a few days ago. A "locale" is a feature code that is not a populated place, which was by contrast "ppl". And as Mangoe has already pointed out, Hopewell Road in that newspaper article is the location of Hopewell Church (which had its own GNIS record that originally said "church" as the feature code, amusingly enough). You have coatracked something about a different place onto the lie. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, wait, is this well, "Queens Well"? Described as a "village of 15 homes" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993[4] and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982[5], and an "outlying Indian village" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the "Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well."[6]?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not WP is being in some sense accurate here, any accuracy is purely accidental, as this article was mass-created by someone who routinely called all these places "unincorporated communities". I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them conscious misrepresentations, but the level of negligence coupled with the euphemistic color of calling places "communities" is particularly galling given the persistent pushback against any kind of wholesale cleanup, much less what goes on when these are nominated one by one. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G, my addition is about the same Hopewell community, the Hershel Jones road referenced in that newspaper article is near the GPS location linked in the article. I think there would be probably be little pushback against editing "locale" articles to say locale instead of unincorporated community -- I realize that may render them more likely to be non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:GNG and WP:N. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ but rename. Said rename can either be done boldly by any editor, or alternatively discussed on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

County island

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

The page shows no source for its term, or its definition. Sources that exist are seemingly isolated to a single state and primarily a single county in said state. There is not substantial evidence of notability of the term in wide or official use outside of a small regional area. If any amount is salvageable, perhaps it should be merged as a subsection of Unincorporated community.

In addition, the page attempts to be a list page, it is woefully incomplete, uncountable, and also includes places that show no indication that they are referred to by the term, making it rather ORy. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing sources that use and define this term. JMWt (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because phrase matching doesn't find it. One has to know what sort of books to read. This is known under the subject of "island annexation" in California law, with an extensive discussion in West's, and "town islands" in Wisconsin law, to name but two. I found you a couple of California university professors, as well. One of them is Dean McHenry. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm. Maybe the title is wrong then? JMWt (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably move to a more widely known term per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Here is an article that notes that "Twenty-three states have specific unincorporated island provisions in their annexation laws." The problem of course is that the terminology in this area is as fragmented as the law, but from an initial search I'd suggest unincorporated island (218 hits on Google Scholar, used in statutory law of at least three states). An alternative term would be municipal underbounding, but it's not quite the same thing. As a last resort this could be merged to municipal annexation in the United States, but I don't think that would be especially helpful to readers or editors. -- Visviva (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real and notable feature of municipal boundaries in the United States. A move to unincorporated island is probably also a good idea. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this may be a case for WP:MERGE of any verifiable content into the Unincorporated areas article – Seems some sources do exist [1] [2]

PD Slessor (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of suggestions here, for an article move (with two different suggested new page titles) and also one for a Merge. I think this discussion needs more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the purposes of AfD, with a possible/probable move to a better title. Clearly notable, but also needs better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of the United States. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Naha

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

Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. Most of the article is just a list of former consults. In fact 21 of the 24 sources merely confirm previous consuls. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator — no credible evidence of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the United States as no GNG, but an important target nonetheless. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kuk-bom

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been playing for the national team for a long time, some mild coverage, including several news sources coverning subjects participation at the 2023 Asian Games, which I have added. Google search resulted in a decent amount of results. Enough to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those don't even come close to passing WP:GNG. None of the sources you found contain in depth coverage of the individual in question. Simione001 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for other reason given in discussion toobigtokale (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess additions to the article since nomination. Also, as an aside, for other reason given in discussion doesn't provide any reason to delete an article so it's a discounted opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All 4 article are essentially match reports, 3 of which talk about how some of the players confronted the referee during the match after disagreeing with an on field decision with one of those articles being pay-walled however it appears to be duplicate of the others. None of them address the subject in any detail. Simione001 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question, I know replies without additional reasoning are weighed less; is it preferred practice to not make them at all? I thought it was ok to do so, sorry if I was off the mark. toobigtokale (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added some Indonesian language references to the article that cover the subject in bit more depth. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The additional sources are two very similar listicle-type blurbs covering the same three players and published a day apart. Clearly not intellectually independent material, and not SIGCOV either. JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite, they are sources (from another country no less) covering the subject and his playing style indepth. North Korea is a journalistically repressed country, so you probably aren't going to find the sources you demand detailing Kim Kuk-bom's dental hygiene and favorite color. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are far from in depth. Anyway you just admitted that there aren't any sources and that's exactly why it should be deleted. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Escobar

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2015, 2018, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Montenegro, Ljubljana

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

This article unreferenced for 14 years, merely confirms the embassy exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Montenegro, and Slovenia. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Very short and not worth having an article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of every nation's embassy. TH1980 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTACATALOGUE. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to WS-CAF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WS-Context

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

Too little (including any potential) content for a dedicated article. I suggest merging with the WS-CAF. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Makes sense, since the notability is questionable. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visit filter

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

I don't think it should have a dedicated article, I suggest merging with Web log analysis software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web log analysis software: I don't see anything to merge, but if I'm wrong, go ahead and merge. Owen× ☎ 01:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aissa (Benji)

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

Promotional bio fails WP:GNG. As an entrepreneur, coverage is limited to passing mentions for business awards and press releases. As a swimmer, you'd think there'd be coverage for winning gold in the 1987 African Games (List of African Games medalists in swimming (men)#200m Breaststroke), but I can't actually find any coverage stemming from that victory that's not a database. A412 (Talk • C) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Tunisia. A412 (Talk • C) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage found is about another individual involved in the SNC Lavalin affair, nothing about this person. Having a patent or two doesn't make you notable. Rest reads like fluff. And crypto. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a WP:SPA-created WP:NOTCV-failing promo to me. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cannella Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OnTV4U

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

Unable to find anything suggesting this network has the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cannella Media: this is the network's parent company, making it a logical-enough alternative to deletion here. (That might require adding a mention of it there if a source allowing so much as that turns up, but not necessarily a "merge" per se.) There really isn't much notability, or significant coverage, that could possibly be expected from an all-infomercial network — this is another reminder of how lax our inclusion standards (or at least enforcement of them) really were in 2008. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canella Media I've been waiting for this day; there's not much you can do with a network whose existence is all infomercials. I've added the mention to the Canella article. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article for Cannella Media. That'll be the most sensible thing that I can think about what this can happen to the article. Fair and Simple. Mer764Wiki (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cannella Media appears to be the best option here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as non-notable enough. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ in the absence of a policy or guideline-backed argument to keep the article. ✗plicit 03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Zaouatene volcanic field

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

I am not sure that this meets WP:GNG inclusion criteria. Liégeois mentions it only in a table with relatively few data. GVP removed their entry; when I emailed them for an explanation they said that there is no indication of volcanic rocks in the area and pointed out how sparse the mention on Liégeois is. This source has only a few data, too, with no detailed description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the experts who decide whether this is a volcanic field have decided that they were mistaken and that there is no such field, surely Wikipedia should follow suit? Special:Diff/1186683457 boggles the mind. The clear rationale seems to be that the article is false and not supported by the experts any more. That is unverifiability, and a basic reason for deletion that has been in deletion policy since 2003. Furthermore: As I have said elsewhere I think the answer to A. B.'s question is that the NERC‐BGS will follow suit soon enough, since its database, it claims^[1], is a join on the Smithsonian's; and soon Smithsonian record #225002 will be there no more. It all depends from when it imports and how it handles records that get deleted and no longer join to its own data. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the databases that constitute our cited sources are deleting it, so should WP. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ebmeier et al. 2018.

Ebmeier, S.K.; Andrews, B. J.; Araya, M.C.; Arnold, D. W. D.; Biggs, J.; Cooper, C.; Cottrell, E.; Furtney, M.; Hickey, J.; Jay, J.; Lloyd, R.; Parker, A. L.; Pritchard, M. E.; Robertson, E.; Venzke, E.; Williamson, J. L. (2018-02-06). "Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains". Journal of Applied Volcanology. 7 (2). doi:10.1186/s13617-018-0071-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rostand Junior M'baï

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this, this, and this, none of which contributes towards GNG in my opinion. Pinging @GiantSnowman: nonetheless. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First source OK, second source weak, third routine - overall not enough, but better. Giant Snowman 22:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Shaoul

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG, even basic player information is unknown. Svartner (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juhor ad-Dik ambush

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

This article is just a recycling of Hamas propaganda, and consists solely of Hamas claims which have not been independently verified. Moreover, half of the sources are unreliable. Article fails both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. As it is, the sources don't really establish any enduring notability, and do in fact only seem to be reporting on unverified claims by Al-Qassam Brigades. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are the claims made not notable? Genabab (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is an article I wrote, I believe (according to rule.4 on the "How to Contribute" section) I should say there may be a COI? I have no other relation to the event outside of that of course.

At any rate, saying the article is a 'recycling of Hamas propaganda' is a dishonest framing. The article goes through pains to state that the claims being made, are in fact claims from Hamas. That is not biased. Hamas is at the end of the day making these claims. Furthermore, the deaths of 60 IDF soldiers in one ambush is very much notable, seeing as how other attacks like the Shuja'iyya ambush, which claimed the lives of 9 IDF soldiers, remain. Genabab (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it. The notability that you're referring to rests entirely on Hamas' claims, which have not been verified. Since you mention it, I encourage you to take a look at the Shuja'iyya ambush and note the differences between that article and this one. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikrobølgeovn

> which have not been verified.

This is not entirely true:

Quoting from the following source:

https://www.newarab.com/news/hamas-releases-video-showing-israeli-camp-attack

"The video comes two days after the Qassam Brigades claimed a major attack on an Israeli encampment south of Gaza City. "At dawn today, the Qassam fighters were able to monitor the positioning of dozens of occupation soldiers (60 soldiers) inside tents at their positioning point east of Juhr al-Deek," the statement claimed."

Now I know that you will claim this is not enough, as it is only Al-Qassam making the claim. Really this isn't a problem, since the source stresses that it is only al-Qassam making the claim.

HOWEVER!

"Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship."

Hamas publishes what is clearly a video of an attack on the IDF, (see above). The IDF then does not comment on the attack but does say seven soldiers died.

As a compromise I propose the addition of 7 (per IDF) (after all, the IDF's claims are no more reliable than Hamas') in the casualties list. Genabab (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While events within a war certainly can be notable, in this case it is questionable if the event ever happened. It could be an invention to boast Hamas funding, support, and morale. Hence we work by SIGCOV in RS. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Videos have been published of the attack in question, as was brought up on the talk page of the wikipage in question. The question is less if the attack happened, and more how many died. While Israel hasn't commented specifically the IDF did publish casualties of 7 killed. Genabab (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article indeed claims that there are 7 casualties according to Israel. I followed the source. It's a website called "The New Arab". That is not an Israeli source is it? This is the text on which you base your claim above: Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship. So this event has never been confirmed and we have no RS that this ever happened. And these seven casualties (if correct) needn't be casualties of this supposed battle. They'd be Israeli casualties in the Northern Gaza Strip over a certain time span. The Hamas movie, doctored by the creators, appears to show soldiers somewhere and sometime at a camp. That's not a valid source AND not proof of ANY ambush, in the article specific in space and time. Hence I will add WP:OR and WP:SYNTH templates to the article. To the closing person: these are additional reasons why this article should be deleted and speedied. OR and SYNTH cause huge damage to the reputation of WP. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was an Israeli source.

Is it wrong to say that the point the article is making is that these 7 casualties are tied to the ambush, or that the video is from the ambush as well? I'm not sure how that could fall under synth or original research... Genabab (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not create articles based on inferences in Hamas movies. Nor ISIS movies or Al Qaeda movies or Boko Haram movies. We're an encyclopedia not a clown show. The fact that this is not a movie of any battle only makes things worse. gidonb (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is based on a single unverified and rather fantastical claim by one of the parties, which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Compare to the ambush in Shuja'iya, which was readily admitted to by Israel. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is speculation and otherwise just a bit of bit of WP history and coincidence. Around 2004, I detected my first major hoax at Enwiki. It was a clever multi-article plot with themes borrowed from the central garbage dump of Israel (now the Ariel Sharon Park) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflct. We're some 19 years further, yet Juhor ad-Dik is the central garbage dump of Gaza. By the Juhor ad-Dik creator, I also detected a questionable article of USSR/British history and there are some red flags on their talk page. I have asked for an expert opinion at the other article. gidonb (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Not every component of this atrocious war is independently notable. Even if it did happen exactly as Hamas claims (I have no opinion on that; please consider that a blanket caveat to the rest of this !vote), it is far WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this supposed ambush will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall war. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged; in-depth analysis does not exist at all yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED outside the one-week window around the purported event. If it happened and the sources evolve to explain it, the event should be covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: If merge is not the accepted consensus, please consider me a Delete !vote; my reasons for merging are identical to reasons I would propose for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a minor battle with little to no coverage; what's used for sourcing isn't in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Israeli RS has reported on this nor has any other non-Hamas news agency reported on this (CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc.). 60 soldiers killed in a single attack is not something that can be kept secret in a country like Israel so I very much doubt this even happened. Regarding the video, all we see is one video where someone is taking a very close video of soldiers, and a second video of an explosion from far away. There is nothing in that video that can confirm those two videos are from the same event. This seems like propaganda and fake news from Hamas. Until non-Hamas RS report this, this should be deleted and its content not merged into any article. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V. The primary source of this article, "Mehr News Agency" is owned by the Iranian government and not WP:RS. The Turkish news agency "AA" source only quotes a Hamas press release verbatim, see WP:PRSOURCE - "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability". Marokwitz (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input capture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Input capture

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

Delete A vague topic with no solid references available. Seems to fail WP:NOTE. Tooncool64 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly sourced, and reads like OR. Owen× ☎ 01:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I feel like this is probably a notable title, but there is a reason it has not received any expansion or sources in 15 years. I wasn't able to really find any sources online that supported or expanded upon the definition of input capture given in the article. I'd support WP:TNT-ing it for now. HappyWith (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and salt. Daniel (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Youth Soccer in Niigata

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A youth soccer tournament. Refs look to be self-coverage by the association plus results/stats of games. Text is just "it exists" factoids. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt non notable youth event. This is the 2nd AFD for it, so WP:SALTing seems like a decent idea to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - per previous AFD. Giant Snowman 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous arguments. Doesn't passes WP:GNG. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 10:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I support salting. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to FireTeam (video game). Daniel (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firetalk

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

Has only one source, and it only says about shutting down. Couldn't find any other reliable independent sources to show notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a band with this name and a blog from the Illinois Fire Service, nothing for this web portal thing. One reference isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FireTeam (video game): where it is already mentioned. Owen× ☎ 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Why the lucky stiff. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (GUI toolkit)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to why the lucky stiff: where it is already mentioned. Not standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 01:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roadshow Players

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

Delete Non Notable, hasn't had any sources added since creation. A quick cursory review of Google shows no relevant articles so WP:NOTE seems to apply.Tooncool64 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short-lived non-notable group of friends who performed non-notable children's pieces. It was sweet of them, but not encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable group.Alekciaaa (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and salt. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Miles Cheong

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated yet again, this time substantially worse than the last version. Not seeing how this passes notability when the much more extensively referenced version that was up for deletion previously (see this archive from the wayback machine) got deleted. As with last time, there's a lot of passing references, but basically no in depth coverage by reliable sources. I would recommend WP:SALTING. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unfortunate, because there is a lot to talk about Cheong, including a lot of criticism, but this page is such a paltry stub. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Video games, Politics, Malaysia, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: have you just removed the WP:A7 tag? Why? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's been contested, and people are going to keep recreating it, so I think requesting SALTING is the best idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt I really have no clue what could possibly be added that renders the AfD of last month invalid. This is more of a procedural matter than something up for debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again? Delete for same reasons as last time, and that nothing new has happened in the last month to increase notability. SALT also. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has enough sources for a stub article.Eric Carpenter (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Oaktree b. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete and salt You're kidding me. Again?! See the previous 2 AfDs; nothing has changed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Pay-for-play provocateur who will never visit the place they criticize the most and whose current writing is otherwise stuck on a dying platform. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm inclined to agree. At worst, his article could be used to spam his dying platform. Using Wikipedia to fuel bad actors is kind of the reason they salted Chris Chan's article, from what I'm given to believe. It's only consistent to salt this guy, too. George Mucus (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per last AFD's conclusion less than 2 months ago. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt on procedural grounds. TompaDompa (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per the above. Left guide (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, clear case of G4. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt simply because it has never been made with substantiating sources. While he *is* a highly influential journalist in alt right circles, the brouhaha about his page on here has me inclined to believe it'll be more trouble to keep having this discussion than the tiny article's unsubstantiated sources warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Mucus (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and delete - per all above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christminster (interactive fiction)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES, it's just a random interactive fiction game. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Brand new article about a computer game from 1995. Sources may exist in print so let's draftify to give a chance to find them. —siro χ o 18:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If they can't find sources, then it should not be a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Currently an unsourced stub. The creator may like to know the IFDB page indicates some minor reviews exist as a starting point [7]. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a three-page section about Christminster in Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction (MIT Press, 2005). Adam Sampson (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G7 (author request)‎. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic International Company

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

Very solid NCORP fail. No secondary sources at all, and Gnews goes off about other majestic, international things after the first three or four results. Fermiboson (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Fermiboson (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a "major edit" template, probably creator will soon make a bigger article, then we'll see if it can be speedy deleted as unambiguously promotional. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has the {{In use}} tag. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira: This tag has been there for 12 hours and no edit was done during that time. I've just tagged WP:G11 on the article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the tag can stay up for 7 days before being removed. Also not sure if it can be CSD'ed when it has an ongoing AfD. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira: I think it's completely fine to speedy delete an article while it has an ongoing AfD if there is a reason for it. It's an instance of WP:SNOW I think.

As per the "In use" tag: If this template has been left in place for more than two hours since the last edit, you may assume the placing editor has forgotten to remove it, and you may remove it yourself. So it's 2 hours, not 7 days. It's "Under construction" template which can stay up to 8 days. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Deque Systems. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaze (software)

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

I couldn't find any reliable independent sources that would indicate the notability of this software. All I found is authored by the company Deque Systems, which is obviously not independent. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is written like an advertisement, so I could as well just tag WP:G11 on this and Deque Systems with it, but I'm not completely sure. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Deque Systems: there's just about enough to exist as a brief mention in the company's article, but not for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 01:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Tower airstrike

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

Tragic but non-notable event. It is one of the countless airstrikes of the 2023 Hamas-Israel war. There is no significant or sustained coverage of the airstrike, no lasting effect (with all due respect to the casualties), nothing that differentiates it from any of the other airstrikes, and it seems as if only this Wikipedia article is covering the airstrike under the title "Hajji Tower airstrike". Mooonswimmer 16:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello everyone, the article talks about the air strike on Hajji Tower, which led to the killing of 3 prominent journalists in the Gaza Strip, noting that the killing of 3 prominent journalists at once in itself meets the standards and is notable. Regarding the phrase (countless in war), please note that this is the first air strike during the war that targeted the first residential tower in the Gaza Strip. The article meets all the standards of noteworthiness in terms of the importance of the event and in terms of the results of the event.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. I'm not sure which standards Osama Eid is talking about, that killing 3 journalists guarantees notability - in the "should have its own Wikipedia article" sense. I agree with the nominator that it has no lasting effects (again, with all due respect to the casualties), I would argue that events like this are common during the war, thus it shouldn't have its own Wikipedia article but rather a section in ~~2023 Israel–Hamas war~~ Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war - yeah, this article is perfect for containing such events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Left guide (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Not worth its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above, yet the correct amount of text and sourcing is already there. gidonb (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as discussed is ok, somewhat notable but just not enough coverage for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Apart from the deaths of the journalists, this was not a notable event. Material will fit well into merge target, there is not enough material to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Cup

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Stats only article. The only sources are results/scores of games. The only text is just factoids that it existed. Tagged by others for notability since June 2023. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are hundreds of articles about the cup in the Australian newspapers (trove.nla.gov.au) going back to its establishment in 1923, but almost all are in The North Western Courier, the regional paper, and mostly these are only fixtures/match reports, from which it is difficult to determine the level of notability. The Courier probably never thought it necessary to publish an in-depth article on the history of this reserve/second-grade competition as the local people would be familiar with it, and other than brief mentions in The Sun and The SMH nobody else seemed interested. EdwardUK (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obviously no relevant hits on Google. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SIGCOV per EdwardUK's comments above. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esken Renewables

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

After researching this company and reading the sources, it fails WP:CORP etc. It's not a notable company. Devoke water 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Devoke water 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nana (C++ library)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, I tried searching for the sources, but couldn't find anything, just random blogs (e.g. "The 7 Best C++ Frameworks"). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Skt34 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PERNOM, in short, it is a bad habit to just post Delete without providing your reasons. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two books that refer to this library (The German book "C++ Schnelleinstieg", ISBN 9783747503249, page 45, that praises ease of use for C++ beginners, and Soft Computing Applications, ISBN 9783030519926, page 289). At the time I wrote the initial version of that article, I found out that many other GUI libraries on wikipedia (see some to the ones mentioned in section "see also") did not have more notability evidence (e.g. some have no references at all, some have only blog references, some have only self references except one reference to a financial transactions), and the sources provided appeared sufficient in comparison. I do not object to the deletion , especially as this library does not seem to be maintained anymore, but if this article gets deleted, there should be equal treatment and those other ones lacking notability should be deleted as well. Christophe (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Changes made to the article during the time of the AfD have accordingly made it difficult to judge different !votes. I would suggest editors start a civil discussion on the talk page to improve the article, or come to a more certain conclusion on deletion, etc, if that can't be decided here. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus machine

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

This is an unreferenced WP:OR. The concept is notable but it is also a likely content fork of Molecular assembler. I suggest WP:ATD-R redirecting it there, unless a better redirect target is proposed. Due to lack of footnotes, I am afraid there's nothing to merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Molecular assembler: per nom until the term is notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it's stated in the nomination, I think this topic is notable. The article is in bad shaped due to lack of citations, but its basic tenets can be verified by e.g. this book by Freitas and Merkle. Thus it is not a case of WP:TNT in my view. I also don't think it's a content fork of Molecular assembler: While I see similarities and some overlap, secondary sources do not equate them, and so we probably should not either. Specifically, Freitas and Merkle distinguish the two concepts by the Santa Claus machine focussing on the macroscale and the molecular assembler focussing on the micro/molecular scale. Daranios (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a distinct concept from the "molecular assembler", though it might not be at the WP:COMMONNAME for such a device. Maybe Replicator (device) may be a better name for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm @Daranios Distinct how? I am genuinly interested in the answer; I find the concept fascinating (and I was aware of it for many years) but AFAIK this is, again, just a cool synonym for molecular assembler. I've added some refs to the article, but it seems to me just like a synonym for the general concept. And I don't think the macro vs micro scale makes sense; [8] explicitly notes that "The famous “replicator” of the science fiction television and movie series “Star Trek” also functions as a Santa Claus Machine". SCM does not have to be big, it can operate on small level. In fact, per that article, if it is created, it will replicate itself and there will be many such machines. Note that Replicator (nanotechnology) redirects to molecular assembler. Replicator (Star Trek) is arguably notable due to popculture impact of the show, but the name variant we discuss here is much more niche. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: On the one hand compare the macroscale definition with the microscale defininition by Freitas and Merkle. And/or directly the chapters for Taylor Santa Claus Machine and Drexler Molecular Assemblers. To summarize myself, while I see some overlap, the molecular assembler centers around the ability to "move molecular objects, position them with atomic precision". The Santa Claus machine on the other hand just vaporizes raw materials, then sorts by element (that's the one step done "atom by atom"), but the reassembling is then done on a macroscopic scale which is already feasible today, more or less using manufacturing techniques already available today. Star Trek's replicator plotwise can do the same, though there might be more limitations upwards then for the Santa Claus machine. From the in-universe explanation, it creates its matter directly from energy, no processing of raw materials required. All those concepts obviously have the same general idea behind them. But both scientists and sci-fi writers sat down and came up with distinct variations within that overall idea. And I think we should document those as long as they are backed up by enough secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking a bit more about it, it seems to me that "Replicator (???)" could be used as the name for the parent idea of all these variations, as Freitas and Merkle use "(Kinematic Machine) Replicator" as the heading for both discussed types. But I am not familiar enough to say if this would be the WP:COMMONNAME. And I am open with regard to the question if Santa Claus machine and the other concepts would better be discussed in various articles or sections of a parent article. Daranios (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Right, although some arguably have stand-alone notability for various reasons. I don't think this one does, however, and I still not convinced the macro/micro scale distinctions are significant enough to warrant splits. That said, I am not seeing many other articles right now that would cover the same topics. It would be nice to hear from someone more familiar with the physics dimension. Is this a serious topic or more of a sf trope? Google Scholar hits at "About 29 results" do not inspire much confidence in the former. And Topmpa Dompa query below also don't do it for the latter, hence the notability concerns. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: In my view there are simply enough secondary sources to allay notability concerns in my view (the one I've quoted, the ones Zxcvbnm has listed below, and just to add two more, Robot Spacecraft, p. 208-209, and The Spike each have a good paragraph). It seems to me now that it is more of a scientific than a sci-fi concept, which might explain some of the dearth of results within TompaDompa's search. Which brings me back to what I've already said, that in my view this is fine to have a stand-alone article, but covering it within a larger context based on WP:NOPAGE might be just as good. And yeah, input form "someone more familiar with the physics dimension" to decide that would be great. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios For a scientific concept, I'd like to see at least one academic paper mentioning this in its heading (seeing such stuff is why I've just created the article on artificial planet). WP:SIGCOV issue, I guess, and as we all know, it's a blurry line between a passing mention and in-depth treatment. I don't think a paragraph here or there is enough if we have a valid redirect&merge target, but - let's see what others think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction does not have an entry for this term, nor does Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. It also does not appear in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. A simple Google Books search gives some results, though it's worth noting that there are some false positives (such as the title of a Pettson and Findus story) and this source which is derivative of the very Wikipedia article under discussion (and therefore unusable). My (admittedly cursory) WP:BEFORE search came up with significantly less material than I would expect for a notable science fiction concept, so it may be that this and related concepts belong at an article with a broader scope. It could also be a terminology issue, I suppose. At any rate, the current version of the article needs to go. TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stripped the article down to a barebones version, removing most of the unsourced material (had I removed all of it, nothing at all would have remained). TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Surely you could also add something instead of just WP:DEMOLISHing the article. There are sources out there that are usable if one looks for them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can presumably all add material if there are freely available usable sources, just as we can all remove material that needs to go.
I have to say that "demolishing the house while it's still being built" describes the situation here extremely poorly: the article was created back in November 2005, initially as a redirect to Assembler (nanotechnology) (a page that was later merged with Molecular assembler). The content was first added to Santa claus machine (note different capitalization) back in December 2005, and then copied-and-pasted (rather than the page moved) to the current title. Jumping ahead a decade or two, the article remained entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion on 12 December. Nobody edited the article whatsoever between that and my removal of unsourced content on 15 December. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered "still being built". TompaDompa (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy of Wikipedia WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept appears under the term Santa Claus machine in a number of books and scientific publications. Not a very large number it seems, true, but I personally think this is above the threshold of WP:NEO. Also, as I believe there is enough on the concept to fullfill WP:WHYN, why not document it? As the term has been around since 1978, I don't think this article qualifies as an attempt to increase usage of the term. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mention that policy because the structure of this article is like a dictionary entry (definition and origin) and the concept is seemed to not be based in many sources. Also, I missed to mention WP:NOTDICT too. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier use of the concept under a different name is the "Autofac", in a 1955 Philip K. Dick story of the same name, in which a factory is set up to make all sorts of goods for humans out of raw materials, only to become a threat to the humans because it is using up all the resources to continue making the goods. BD2412 T 04:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but find a better name. There is a clearly notable and well-trod concept in science fiction of a machine that can make whatever you want from raw materials. BD2412 T 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus, channel opinions to discussion This has been going on long enough that the immediately prior delete !vote is based on a significantly different version of the article that looks reasonably like a dictdef of a neologism... only that's a substantially different version of the article than the one that was nominated. If this is AfDeletion rather than AfDiscussion, the clear answer is that we're not going to delete this, but whether it's improved, merged, or something different can be hashed out outside of this process. I have no strong feelings as to which, but when we're starting to get contradictory !votes because the article has sufficiently changed during the multiply relisted discussion... Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Disambiguate‎. Please handle editorially as no admin action is needed. Star Mississippi 14:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial world

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

This is an unreferenced stubby fork of megastructure, repeating a few facts about them and then going on a tangent to summarize the plot of two random works. I suggest WP:ATD-R of redirecting this to megastructures. My BEFORE failed to suggest this term ("artificial world") is notable. That said, artificial planet may be, but that's not even a redirect anyway, and should be written from scratch based on sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted terminology, as used in another encyclopaedia even, is Big Dumb Object, and we already had it from 2002 before this article was started in 2003 with the same two BDOs that everybody starts with. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate No clear meaning. It could easily refer to megastructures or virtual worlds, amongst other things. Or just a simulation of the real world a la Dark City (1998 film). Given the extreme vagueness, it should likely not be an article in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. There is some discussion using this phrase in the academic world, so it's possible an article could exist here but it would need to be a WP:broad concept article and backed by numerous sources. —siro χ o 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dyson sphere, with a hatnote elsewhere (e.g.: "Fictional universe") if necessary. Even a disambiguation page is too much here, but I would accept it. There is only one notable article about this topic, even if there are multiple examples. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Dyson sphere isn't even an artificial world, as in Dyson's concept, sci-fi notwithstanding, it would be more like a group of satellites or "swarm". That is possibly one of the more misleading places to redirect it to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Swarm has its own article at dyson swarm. Hmmm, it's redirected. Oh well. One day :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: While this concept certainly exists, it can mean anything from the eponymous location in The Matrix to the Dyson sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, per above बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilanhai River

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

The article violates is bare as is, but after searches I cannot find anything regarding the Kilanhai River. It is violates WP:NOT. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, I've found this, but that's definitely not enough and the length of the article is just ridiculously small. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – No sources, and the article would have been speedily deleted under A1. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was only able to find one source that even mentions this river, there might be sources but if there are they are not in English. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of JJ Lin concert tours

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

Per WP:NCONCERT: "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is translated from Chinese Wikipedia. The singer has a certain degree of popularity. 进阶的无处 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tour lists are very common on Wikipedia, and the singer has a large tour scale and has a certain amount of attention. 进阶的无处 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia cannot be used as a directory of concerts unless only notable concerts are listed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it fail WP:NLIST as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into JJ Lin. While JJ Lin is certainly very notable in the region, I don't think there should be a separate article for a list of his concerts. --Blissfulclarity (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the deletion rationales that we can't just have WP:LISTCRUFT of not-particularly-notable concerts which would be better suited on a fan site. I don't like the idea of merging this vast amount of data onto the subject's own article as it would be excessive and detract from the biographical nature of the subject's article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Nominated in error. Apologies. (non-admin closure)‎ Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Lin

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

Per WP:NCONCERT: "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apologies, nominated the wrong browser tab. Figuring out how to "officially" retract now. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WDAFD Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. A further seven days since my (final) relist and HighKing's contribution remains unresponded to and unrefuted. On that basis, that is the premier contribution to this debate and has sufficient support (nominator plus one other), and therefore consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manhasset Specialty Company

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

Ref #1 seems to be unrelated. Ref #2 is just primary. No other WP:42 sources found in WP:BEFORE, thus NN. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Music. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed with nom, the first source is completely irrelevant and the second is the company itself. No secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my delete and changing it to a keep based on the sources found below. I don't agree that all of these are significant coverage but at least a couple are. Someone should now improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a company nearly everyone in the music industry knows and has used products of (and I say that with very little hyperbole). Unfortunately, being a music stand manufacturer will not net a lot of coverage. There is some coverage in trade magazines (since it is a surprisingly large company) and local news, but I honestly do not know how far they will go:
Hopefully this is enough for, what I think is, an important company. Why? I Ask (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Any reliable, significant coverage found is primarily about the company's music stand - not the company itself. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If their product is notable, then the company is at least deserving of a mention. But it would be odd to have the article focused on the music stand and not the broader topic of the company and its history. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If their product is notable, then there will be sufficient sources to write an article about the product. Notability of a product doesn't transfer to notability of the company - see WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the company is synonymous with the product. It's all they make. That's why WP:NCORP says: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a consensus just about exists here to delete based on strength of argument relative to policy, I want to give the two editors !voting 'keep' (and anyone else so interested) a chance to reply to HighKing's statement, which has come very late in the piece.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above by users. Skt34 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation in this discussion. No prejudice towards an immediate renomination. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math house

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Biology, Mathematics, Computing, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://search.brave.com/goggles?q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22&source=web&q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22 Baratiiman (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - our colleague above unhelpfully provided a search engine result, however it did actually provide a source to discuss. This is a a conference presentation which was then published as an academic proceeding, and appears to be on topic. There appears to be another published paper that cites it, but I have not been able to establish the reliability of that journal. I see other whispers, it seems like there may be other sources (including non-English ones) if we dig a bit deeper. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment, no opinion on the notability (at most borderline, it looks), but it should be moved to Isfahan Mathematics House or similar should it be kept. - Nabla (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice to an immediate renomination to consider new sourcing presented here. Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Tracey

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

None of the information in the article is corroborated by the source, the subject fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and New Zealand. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [9] is all I can find from a search and it does not mention the subject. Possible hoax? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not a hoax; multiple national titles and long racing career, as covered in The Press newspaper between 1978 and 1988 at PapersPast. The Press is the only NZ newspaper currently with full online coverage from this period. Given that Tracey was from Auckland, and The Press is a Christchurch newspaper, it is safe to assume that there would be even fuller and more extensive coverage in the New Zealand Herald and Auckland Star newspapers during that period. Paora (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was hoping to find more... [10] is a mention by another individual. Was hoping Trove from Australia's national library would have something [11], they don't; I wonder if he's too modern to be in there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the Wikipedia Library link there isn't much to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Did you look at the PapersPast search results? Paora (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First one's the best, rest are trivial mentions, still not enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Tracey was inducted into the New Zealand Speedway Hall of Fame in 2012 [12]. Article here on Tracey from Speedway Racing, November 1984. Paora (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Here's an article profiling Tracey in the Indianapolis Star of 25 September 1983. Paora (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've struck my vote, now Neutral. The IndyStar article is good. The other sourcing isn't enough for me to !vote keep but I recognize the WP:POTENTIAL for further offline articles to exist for a subject whose activities far predated mass use of the internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistance Resource Teacher

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

I could not significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First off, it is inherently dangerous to try and re-establish notability for recent-but-pre-internet phenomena. It's easier to find good, online, academic resources about events in the 1780s than for 1980s. I agree that most of the sources for the article are primary, but not all. A 2009 journal article [13] discusses the scheme, as does a recent thesis [14] (though the latter is not a quality source). I think on balance, the article provides solid, verifiable info and enriches the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard a thesis as a reliable source. Can you find WP:THREE quality sources? LibStar (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. However, that does not (in and of itself) require deletion of the article. I am not in this field and do not have access beyond publicly-posted works. If this were a new article, I might !vote to draftify, but it's a long-standing one about a subject rooted in a period about which secondary sources are thin on the ground. I just don't think deleting it improves the encyclopaedia since there are sources, both those already cited and the journal article I mention above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Special Assistance Program (Australian education), or what can be salvaged. Second option would be to keep. Most of the article is unsourced, and there is almost certainly significant coverage in newspaper reports, but I expect most of them to not be scanned/publicly available due to copyright issues and it would be virtually impossible to integrate them unless an editor happens to live in Victoria and investigate it themselves. This is a particular issue for 60s-90s buildings and programs in Australia, as most of these newspaper reports enter public domain after 70 years [15]. As it reads right now, I also think there is a modest possibility of copyvio of offline sources, and I think it would be better to just merge the cited and/or verifiable material into what seems like the parent article of the topic. This is not withholding the possibility that in future this could change, but I think the topic would be have more encyclopedic value if merged into the parent article considering this is a program which only ran in Victoria, and the parent article is only 1076 words at time of writing so there is definitely room for the merge. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am not opposed to a keep in principle, as there is presumed coverage according to WP:GNG with the high likelihood of offline sources existing, I just think a merge would make the content more useful. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyran Lacy

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

Fails YOUNGATH. No non-routine coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Hong Kong. Fermiboson (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No suitable redirect either at this stage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author contests deletion on talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tried to find sources in Google, but couldn't, fails WP:SIGCOV. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Paper Mario series

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Characters in the Paper Mario series. The page was a redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise that did not find support as a good target at the RfD. The pre-redirect article content had been merged following a proposal at Talk:Characters in the Paper Mario series#Well, I guess here we go., and the RfD was against an outright deletion, but for discussion at AfD. Jay 💬 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jay 💬 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Paper Mario characters have been discussed as a group - see here and here - and there are many not individually notable Paper Mario characters that got coverage in RS. Paper Mario is a large enough series that it could have its own character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zxcvbnm has found coverage proving notability by Wikipedia standards. Easier to have the characters in one list article, than in each individual game article. Dream Focus 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike many other recently deleted listcrufts, this reads much better than them and is notable unlike those others. Dympies (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, but primarily per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Characters of the Mario franchise. The sources that Zxcvbnm has brought would probably best be used in the series article. The current article has very few sources currently and all of them are used either generically or talk about characters on the main series list. Finally, what characters that are notable could easily be covered on the main series list. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? Almost all of the characters are different in these series. Dream Focus 16:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these characters do not need to be listed on the main list, the ones that do can easily be merged into the main list. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge were to happen which ones would be moved over? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - pinging those involved in the RFD. @QuicoleJR: @Panini!: @Thryduulf: @Crouch, Swale: @Lenticel: @ThomasO1989: @A smart kitten: @Tavix: (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article was restored without addressing any of the core issues. It is primarily original research and contains only four references. Merging into Characters of the Mario franchise would not work well, as 99% of these characters don't meet that article's inclusion criteria (appearing in more than 3 or 4 games, etc). A good chunk of these characters are relatively minor and the ones that aren't are more or less covered on the respective articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxvvbnm. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woah, shoot, when was this article made? Panini! • 🥪 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17 August 2007. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work but there are several references out there. I don't even play the game but was able to get refs for some of the characters. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the article could definitely use some work, the sources that Lenticel provided are definitely demonstrating notability. I'd change my vote to a strong keep if there were more sources going over the original characters found within Paper Mario, and The Thousand Year Door as I'm confident there's at least some references going over some of these guys. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The series is big enough to justify having its own character page. While the page isnt in good shape, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I could see an arguement for WP:TNT being made. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep need works but notable enough. BlackShadowG (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article in its current state is messy and unkempt, but with information added from Zxcvbnm, it seems to be worthy to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seigle Knight

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

The subject, a Jamaican footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I, too, couldn't find any sources that would meet WP:SIGCOV. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chawar Dynasty

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

Also nominated: Raja Chanwarsen.

These two articles needs checking to see whether they are verifiable in reliable sources or not (in which case they need deletion), or just need to be moved to the right title.

The Chawar or Chanwar Dynasty seems to be based solely on the works of Raj Kumar, who discusses a "Chamar" dynasty. There are no books about a Chawar Dynasty[16] and one mention of a Chanwar Dynasty[17], but there is one author who has extensively written about a Chamar Dynasty[18]. But one would expect many more sources about a dynasty that apparently ruled "the western part of India and surrounding areas" for 600 years.

The articles have some sources which seem to have nothing to do with the subject at all, e.g. Raja Chanwarsen uses this book[19] as a reference?

There are no book sources (in Latin script) about a king "Raja Chawarsen"[20], nor for Raja Chamarsen or Raja Chanwarsen. Perhaps some other spelling will give results? Fram (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Fram (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Chawar Dynasty but oppose Raja Chanwarsen. You can't catch him because he is spelled differently in English and Hindi. Please conduct research before initiating an AfD. He was a king not a dog! India had over 500 princely states, ruled by Maharaja (king). Clearly passes WP:NPOL. 2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please enlighten us, how is his name spelled in English then? I did my research, I added links of my searches. You just make claims but don't provide anything to substantiate them. Fram (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I don't think Juan Ramón Jiménez's Platero and I, a famous early 1900s Spanish poem about a donkey, actually has a lot to say about Raja Chanwarsen... This makes me suspicious of the other sources. The one Hindi source links to a seemingly AI-generated news4ocial.com piece that claims Chanvarsen (@Fram might want to search this spelling) and the dynasty were written about in great detail in the book "History of Rajasthan" by a "Colonel Taad Mahoday" (this is probably James Tod). The article also uses a pic, helpfully captioned "History", of unrelated erotic sculptures from the Jain Adinatha temple, Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh, so...reliability is questionable. The page also has this disclaimer: "Disclaimer: The information and information given in this article is based on general information. News4social does not confirm these. Before implementing these, contact the concerned expert." Chamar refers to a dalit caste and alleged dynasty that Chanvarsen may have belonged to. JoelleJay (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image used on the Chanwarsen page is of Karna, not Chanwarsen, and was stolen from the cover of a book. I've nominated it for deletion at commons as copyvio. Not sure what has to be done on en.wp end? JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Of the five sources used in the dynasty article:

Kalpaz publications looks like a predatory publisher that doesn't do any peer review or even copy-editing of manuscripts.
Victor Rosner in Anthropos makes no mention of any dynasty, he is talking about chawar, which is a type of headdress made from false hair.
Onni Gust in Victorian Studies makes no mention of any dynasty; it is the preceding article by Angela Thompsell that mentions the Chamar, but that is in reference to the Dalit caste of that name, which is obviously very, very far from a ruling dynasty.
Jankari Today does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
The Joshua Project is utterly useless and rightly condemned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Raja Chanwarsen reigned for 600 years, if you believe his article. I think we can take it as read that such claims are not substantiable. The sources at Chanwarsen are the same, or as bad, as the ones in the dynasty article. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both poor quality sourcing showing no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Baum

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No WP:SIGCOV. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Best sources I can find are this and this. Giant Snowman 22:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. The article was speedily deleted by Deb per G11. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Trafford

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

Journalist only noteworthy for quitting his job. Sources 1 and 2 mention him and his resignation statement, but are largely about the resignation events and not him. 3 is a primary source summarizing his work, and 4 through 6 are articles he contributed to. Source 7 is a duplicate of 1 and 8 makes no mention of him.

His resignation may merit a mention in the article on Whakaata Māori, but not a standalone BLP. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New Zealand. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The promotional tone of the article and the fact that its creator made only 20 edits, 8 of which is related to this article, calls for WP:G11. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awfis

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

Fails Notability, Appears to be product advertising at the moment, and can't find sources from reputable news sources, let alone substantial coverage. Most of the coverage are routine. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There seems to be sufficient number of links in all categories. In-depth evaluation can yield the result. Deleting it outright will not be fair. Cruzdoze (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Singleton

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per consensus Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There is no association football/soccer criteria so I'm rather confused why you would cite that. This is a person from the 1900s whose career ended in 1907, so are you aware that there may not be abundance of sources online for a person whose career ended 116 years ago?--Echetus Xe 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE is related to football as well, am I missing something? I mean there is a section "Professional sports people" with various sports and football is not included, but that only means that we can't use some specific criteria for football to prove notability like in other sports. Thus, we should orient on WP:SPORTBASIC, which is not met in this case. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are sources online, [21], [22], [23] seriously, didn't you do a WP:BEFORE at all?? Govvy (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hampson

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per consensus Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fatally flawed nomination by somebody who, respectfully, does not have a clue, as shown by their attempt to CSD A7 the article prior to this AFD. This is a professional player (over 120 appearances) active in the 1950s with sufficient sources to show notability. Giant Snowman 19:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over a hundred caps for Halifax in the football league, one for Everton and a few for Bradford City. I will have faith there is more in a newspaper source and WP:OFFLINESOURCES, the online ones are not so great, mainly databases from what I see. However there is certainly confirmation of the players career like [24], what makes me want to keep more is this source [25], which tells us more than whats on the article, including he was manager of Prescot Cables F.C. If I found that in a few min on a google search I am unimpressed with the WP:BEFORE here. As there are multiple sources online which can easily boost the article. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Turkmenistan–United States relations as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Ashgabat

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

Says almost nothing about the embassy itself. The little that it does say, in the final sentence, can be covered at Turkmenistan–United States relations, although I question the wisdom of writing that something is scheduled for completion in 2018, when it’s almost 2024. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these embassies is independently notable. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkmenistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork of bilateral relations. Another article created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkmenistan–United States relations as a valid ATD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunderdale

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also I don't see any claim of significance in the article, probably we can just speedy delete it under WP:A7. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amateur footballer with absolutely no indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – The only source of the article is the Claremont Football Club Facebook page... sincerely Svartner (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear GNG failure. I'm shocked that this was created by an experienced editor and that the PROD was removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Fortin

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

Assistant professor with unexceptional citation counts fails WP:NPROF. A412 (Talk • C) 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A412 (Talk • C) 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely near a pass of WP:Prof. Created by an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agreed, probably nothing wrong with her as an early-career scientist, but way too soon for an article, doesn't meet NPROF. Elemimele (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Canada, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awards are early career, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YGcW8CEAAAAJ isn't especially notable, seems like WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promising early career with some awards, but too soon. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lunt

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

Player currently has no significant coverage and shows no evidence of meeting GNG. PROD denied on the grounds he has a reference from his own club website. Draftify would also be an acceptable option. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 22:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus below of editors correctly citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines is that the article does not meet GNG. Daniel (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Garashov

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article largely fail WP:IS, none have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill business news, nothing that indicates this subject meets GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 06:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johsgun Aliyev (talk) How does it not fit?

Shared news sites are the most prestigious news sites in Azerbaijan, just search by typing the person's name in Azerbaijani and you will find many references about production, business and investment. 10:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is sufficient reference and information about the person. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All news and information references have been edited and added as necessary. Thanks. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The head of the 'Azerbaijan Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association' doesn't meet notability and is clearly being pushed for promotion. Nswix (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is the president and founder of the project, which produces more than 15 million units for the world market Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't my questions answered or references read, this is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules.

The person is a businessman who exports, produces, and also deals in large quantities in the global market.

If you search in other languages, you will see that this person has a lot of followers and engagement on social networks.

In fact, it is the most read article of the week on Wikipedia in other languages. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't my questions answered or references read, this is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules.

The person is a businessman who exports, produces, and also deals in large quantities in the global market.

If you search in other languages, you will see that this person has a lot of followers and engagement on social networks.

In fact, it is the most read article of the week on Wikipedia in other languages. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find me the rule that says your questions have to be answered. And it's on the most viewed list for the same reason half of those articles are there, because they're having their views manipulated. Nswix (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the questions belong to you, I'm saying they belong to adults and the person is not on Wikipedia, let's say he is new, or manipulation exists in every field, in every field. a kind of social status and advertising attribute.

There are already dozens of wikipedias causing a lot of noise these days. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NBIO. --Surə ^🗯 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siz də yazdınızsa məqaləni silərəm 🙂 Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This type of comment will get you blocked. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are more experienced than me, do your best. 😊 Sorry for the comments, I wrote them over and over on the phone. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only sources found are news sources that only mentions his quotes. I've found two Russian sources from the same website, but otherwise, doesn't meets WP:GNG. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Clarksville mayoral election

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

WP:CRYSTAL WP:TOOSOON. There's been no coverage of this election in WP:RS given that it's in three years. No listed candidates appear to have made an election bid, they're just copied from 2022 Clarksville mayoral election. A412 (Talk • C) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Tennessee. A412 (Talk • C) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there is currently no coverage available about this event. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article can always be re-created should significant coverage of the election come up. Cortador (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Wheel of Time#Setting. If there is any content worthy of merging, the history is available. RL0919 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World of the Wheel

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

Most of the article is written in-universe. Sources do not show significant coverage of this topic. Z1720 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television. Z1720 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wheel of Time#Setting. I've been working on making the World of the Wheel article irrelevant by improving The Wheel of Time and diverting redirects, and will continue to do so. There is some valuable info here but it can be incorporated elsewhere with sources. This article was apparently created by a now-blocked editor trying to mimic World of A Song of Ice and Fire but not committed enough to actually source it.— TAnthony^Talk 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, condensed and sourced coverage of all the topics in this article (including geography) now exists in The Wheel of Time. As Piotrus and I have noted, this more detailed article can always be revived in the future with sources when editors have the time and desire to do so.— TAnthony^Talk 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the title may be a bit atypical, this is essentially a "World/universe of the Wheel of Time" article, which may well pass muster. I don't see a BEFORE, and while I don't want to in any way dis what TAnthony has been doing, the decision to have such an article or not, per franchise, tends to be an editorial decision rather than a policy mandate. (Oh, and GNG is met because the topic is "The Wheel of Time" which is clearly notable) Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect to WP:BKD, it is certainly not the case that a derivative article about a thing from a self-evidently notable book or series is notable just by association. There needs to be significant coverage about the setting from reliable sources, and that isn't in the article. That the citations allude to a Wheel of Time Companion is a good indication there may be lively commentary about the Wheel of Time series out there. I agree a WP:BEFORE is necessary here before assessing whether to keep or redirect the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the topic of "The World of the Wheel" is "The Wheel of Time" franchise, much like the topic of a "list of X" is "X". This is a nuanced thing, so I don't fault people for getting it, but the title of an article is not always the topic for which notability must be established. As you note, there appear to be multiple dead tree sources addressing this fictional world. I haven't read any of them, or the series itself, so I'm commenting from a place of policy understanding but topic ignorance. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was just created in 2021, perhaps the editor had great intentions but it has always just been a detailed, somewhat crufty list of locations not really tied to the plot arc, and some exhausting coverage of channeling and the "magical" aspects. With basically no sourcing. I've been expanding The Wheel of Time#Setting in a succinct way, with sources. If I add a couple of paragraphs there about the geography, I believe that the key aspects of this article will be adequately covered between The Wheel of Time and List of The Wheel of Time characters. Redirecting this article now is harmless, it can always be revived at a later date if someone has the time and interest in making something decent out of it. And to clarify my previous comments, the current version of this article is nearly identical to how it was before I touched it, except for the lead. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 04:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some guidance on where your thinking is coming from. Without secondary sources providing context, I would have thought a page describing a fictional concept, thing or setting enters the territory of WP:NOTPLOT, with the following policy question being whether it can be concisely summarised in the primary article. I don't have experience in this area and am happy to be wrong on this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited like that. The topic here is not The Wheel of Time franchise itself, but its setting. The parallel with "List of X" is completely nonsensical. And while notability is a necessary criterion for a stand-alone article, it is not a sufficient one (WP:NOPAGE). TompaDompa (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course notability is not inherited, but "not inherited" is not relevant when two articles share the same underlying topic. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay portion, fundamentally about personal relationships and has nothing to do with identical vs. adjacent fictional topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't share the same underlying topic. Surely you understand the difference between a work of fiction and an in-universe element of that fiction? Surely you understand the difference between The Hobbit and Bilbo Baggins? TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a piece on Tor.com (which in the past has been treated as reliable, and considered independent of the book publisher) that discusses the subject holistically: [26]. There are some promising academic works out there but I haven't had a chance to review them yet. —siro χ o 03:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another related article also by Tor.com, slightly narrower in focus, is The Striking Geology of The Wheel of Time. Daranios (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Books was the publisher of the Wheel of Time series, so I do not think that the sources fulfil the independent requirement outlined in WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tor.com is an online magazine published by the same publisher. The independence is at the same level as any other magazine published by a book publisher. It's not in fact the voice of the publisher or any imprint. I had voiced the same concern, and it has been considered independent in the past. I investigated myself and agree. Their about page[27] and FAQ[28] also reflect this, a choice quote Tor.com is publisher neutral, and we operate in our own special corner of Macmillan, the publishing company that also encompasses Tor Books.

Of course, we'd almost certainly need a source independent of Tor.com as well to meet GNG for a fictional element like this. I haven't been able to dive to deep into the academic sources yet. One was an edited student work, but probably not sufficient for GNG. Another provided coverage of political aspects of the books, without getting to deep into the fictional geography, borderline probably. Haven't found anything sure to be convincing yet though there is more to investigate. —siro χ o 18:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy. Daranios (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. While there is small chance this is notable, what we have is a gigantic unreferenced plot summary that violates MOS:PLOT and WP:GNG, and of course, WP:V. Redirect, no prejudice to seeing this restored with sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The academic paper Bards and Gleemen: from the Middle Ages to Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time has 1.5 pages directly on the subject, focussing on the broad concept and magic, ah, pardon me, One Power, rather than geography. Plus some more comments here and there. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PhD thesis QUESTING FEMINISM: NARRATIVE TENSIONS AND MAGICAL WOMEN IN MODERN FANTASY analyzes how feminist ideas are central elements in Robert Jordan's fantasy world (while I have my own ideas on this...). Another tor.com article Robert Jordan: The American Tolkien has some more general analysis and comparison with Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Daranios (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wheel of Time#Setting. I think this topic is probably notable, the content could most likely be verified at least by primary sources, and I will be sorry to see a few details go which are not yet present at that target (like a bit more on Shara than where it is). But overall thanks to TAnthony's work the target is just in better shape (sourced for one) than what we have here. Maybe the sources dug up here so far will be used by someone in the future to further expand either there or back here. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Wheel of Time#Setting per Daranios. I believe this could be notable but a merge allows us to revisit this discussion in the future. Archrogue (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wheel of Time#Setting: per the above participants. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G11 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Entrepreneur Success

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

Pretty sure that it fails WP:NBOOK. I haven't been able to find any non-bookstore or non-author-written sources about the book. AriTheHorse 04:13 (Updated 04:15), 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete per OP and WP:PROMO. Also can't find any sources. The creator of the page also seems to be a WP:SPA with a draft for the subject of this book. Their user page also seems to be AI generated with a section that says "My editing contributions cover a wide array of topics, including [insert specific interests or subjects you've worked on].". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; really fails WP:NBOOK, no reliable source found. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is very nearly a speedy as blatantly promotional. "Each chapter of Young Entrepreneur Success offers a practical roadmap for those aspiring to translate their passions into successful ventures. ...."Young Entrepreneur Success" extends an invitation for readers to accompany Felipe Vasquez on a journey that delves not only into the realms of business but also into the profound influence that an individual can exert on industries and communities." Inappropriate material about a book that doesn't even hint at a pass in any category of NBOOK. Elemimele (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged it under WP:G11. Why wait a week to remove this completely promotional article from Wikipedia? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have already stated, the article is obviously promotional and doesn't have sufficient independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture. The "delete" !votes make strong arguments that much of the content in this article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but don't challenge merging the viable content. The arguments to keep I find generally weak. As such I see consensus to merge after pruning inappropriate content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe and music

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

This is really a subset of a missing Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture article, but if everything in this article that was undue, unsourced, or poorly sourced was wiped away, what would be left would be one good paragraph to merge back into the parent article. BD2412 T 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Edgar_Allan_Poe_in_popular_culture. killer bee  05:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging this content into the featured article on Edgar Allan Poe would only invite cruft, though I do think the sourcing here is somewhat better than other similar lists. The already-created Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture article is focused on fictional depictions of the historical figure and probably not an appropriate dumping ground for this content either. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Roughly 80% of the lines on the page are completely unsourced. The ones that are I would say are a mixed bag. BD2412 T 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify to a prosaic article rather than a list. see Poe and the Idea of Music and Romanticism in a New Key and the Case of Edgar Allan Poe.Mach61 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article appears to be old and requires improvements, but Edgar Allan Poe's influence on various types of music is considerable. Svartner (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is silly. There is a huge overlap between this random pile of factoids and Allusions to Poe's "The Raven", Annabel Lee#Adaptations, A Dream Within a Dream#Adaptations, and the many other Poe-related articles where adaptations and suchlike are listed. In fact, let's see what happens if we remove those, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliminating the overlap eliminates almost half of the article, with lists already in the other articles, often containing much the same items. Even this article has duplicates. It's possible that with all of that removed there is a form taking shape, here, but the problem still is sourcing. A couple of experiments trying to source some of the items left reveals that it is very difficult to confirm much more than song titles in some cases, let alone the detailed claims about the works. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not necessarily a part of Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture because not all music is "popular music". More important, it is large and significant enough to be a separate (sub)page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually none of this is cited; it's an original research essay that has ballooned into an uncited WP:COATRACK. Any noteworthy musical adaptation of, or noteworthy reference to, any of Poe's works belongs on the wiki article for the work – and even then only if cited reliably. If there is no article on the Poe work, then the information belongs on the wiki article for the music piece, but only if reliably cited. (If there is no wiki article on the musical piece, then it likely lacks sufficient notability to mention anyway.) If for some reason this article is kept, all of the uncited material should be wholesale deleted. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a common case of the indiscriminate "In Popular Culture" style with no sense of perspective. While some allusions should be mentioned at the subject's article (e.g. "Who the Hell Is Edgar?" should talk about Poe), few are important derivative works or substantially enduring, so should not be mentioned at an article about Poe. Anything comparably well-known to the original work could be reintroduced at Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture or the articles on Poe's original works. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of my suggestion to focus the article on sources which analyze his impact on music broadly, rather than listing individual trivia? Mach61 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like writing a new article entirely, ergo, WP:TNT. BD2412 T 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TNT applies as I cannot see how the current article would help you in that task. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture: Per WP:DUE बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GripeO

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

Routine coverage that doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH.

Don't believe this passes GNG, either. The page was originally put up as a promotional piece, and the linked website does not seem to be the same as the company described in the articles. Comintell (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article seems to list sources that look trustworthy on the surface, but which actually seem like they're regurgitating GripeO's marketing materials. AriTheHorse 04:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A company based in India, with sources all from the Buffalo, New York area? I don't think this is the same thing... Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement that the company was based in India was a simple vandalism edit, made in April of this year, which I have now reverted. It had remained there for 8 months, during which there have been 48 edits, yet none of the editors editing in that time seems to have noticed that everything refers to a totally different place, spent one minute checking the editing history, and found the vandalism. JBW (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's been a tremendous amount of socks and manipulation involved in this article, which included links to fake articles and PR. Farther back in the history, I can see an account alleging to be the original owner claiming the startup went defunct and the domain was taken over by a less-than-desirable entity. Looking at archive.org, it does appear the domain expired in 2017 and was picked up by a crypto/forex blog in 2020. IP and metatag history sites show a similar story. Their current TOS notes Wyoming laws apply, which is a red flag: Wyoming/Sheridan is infamous for the registration of cheap and anonymous shell companies. I did not find anything related to "Gripeo" in the Wyoming registry, though. All that said, I think the nomination has the feel for it. This is not the original site, and the original was not terribly notable to begin with. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vandalism, non-notable original site and non-notable site now using the domain. Nothing in this screams keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax and vandalism and lack of passing WP:CORPDEPTH बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KPLE-CD

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

Nothing is here to show this meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. It would seem that KPLE went on air in the early 90s; its license history is severed by the digital conversion, not uncommon for an LPTV. It aired TBN programming until TBN cut the cord in 2018. There is some local coverage in Killeen, but I'm not too sure if it comes to our level. [29][30][31][32][33] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Color Changin' Click

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

Two of the members in this group (Chamillionaire and Paul Wall) are notable, but the group as a whole does not appear to be. In addition, only the first sentence of the entire article is sourced; and it seems pretty obvious that reliable sources might be scarce because parts of the article actually say things like "it's unclear if..." and "not much is known about..." Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify the editor because they have not edited Wikipedia at all since April 2006. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that both of the albums in this article's Discography section were released under the name Paul Wall & Chamillionare, with the name Color Changin' Click absent from the album covers. The two albums are also described as "Collaborative albums" at the personal articles for each of those two rappers. It appears that Color Changin' Click was an unofficial nickname for the duo that was soon forgotten by history. Both guys' articles have basic coverage of their work in duo form, and that is sufficient. This article tries to fill space by merely repeating text that is available elsewhere, while speculating (without reliable proof) on whoever else was hanging around. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as a 'soft-redirect' and ATD. Daniel (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WFFC-LD

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

No WP:SIGCOV is present for this to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per nom (and my K04QR-D AfD). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 55 Battle

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football. Joeykai (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here to show this meets the WP:GNG. Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a thing; from a quick glance, refs 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 seem to all be independent sources talking about the rivalry. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing the notability here; this article (in terms of its sourcing) is essentially a compilation of reports of non-notable individual games glued together here on Wikipedia in a way not done by any outside sourcing. A few sources briefly describe the previous matchup or the then-current season for one or both of the teams, but I am still unable to find sufficient and meaningful overview-level contextual coverage of the rivalry as a whole cohesive topic. The only such coverage I see is a single sentence in this source which says: In the Battle of Highway 55, Campbellsville leads the series, 4-3, but after winning the first three games of series, the Tigers have won just one of the last four meetings. This alone appears to fall short of making the rivalry notable. Left guide (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrel Wijks

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

The subject, a Surinamese men's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find significant coverage of the subject. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created at a time when NFOOTY was the guideline, and does not meet current GNG requirement. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Partners

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

All sources are non-independent except #3, which describes the director of the org and #6, which describes a co-founder. (Note #15 features one of the directors of the org as a guest). Search reveals no more sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, South Africa, and United States of America. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of primary sources and the lists of non notable people suggest this is WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berti Brandon Diau

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

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Diau and no evidence that factors have changed w/r/t notability. Not a G4, but perilously close to G11 with text such as " His charismatic approach and evident desire to succeed" Star Mississippi 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Star Mississippi 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enough evidence for notability! Googling the Name shows enough News Articles from reliable sources Dietermueller76 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the Name Brandon Diau shows enough reliable News Articles. So many footballers on here who don’t have one mention in news articles are on Wikipedia Dietermueller76 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per prior AfD. Appearing in news articles is not enough for GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale 2

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

Found only two pieces of significant coverage. QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale in a new section titled "Sequel" near the bottom. Left guide (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFILM/GNG with a review in Common Sense Media [34] and a retrospective review in Polgyon [35] —siro χ o 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFILM sources mentioned by Siroxo by way of the nomination. This is a full article about a film featuring the now iconic character (and mermaids). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Either Redirect as suggested by Left guide above, or~~ Keep, as some sources have been presented by QuietCicada and Siroxo, to which one can add, in Fr., a rapid assessment here. Opposed to deletion anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) (Edited 12/24 after checking the source presented by Atlantic306, below.)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG from the sources the nom and siroxo have found. User:Let'srun 15:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can never understand noms for sequel movies when the first doesn't get nominated at all; here, its notability is self-evident as a sequel film for a notable property. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, meets notability guidelines.

Tooncool64 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion, also found this review in a Dutch film magazine here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, various reviews have it meet WP:NFILM Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale. Only two sources have been found so far, plus two unreliable blogs. This does not pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what the above comment refers to as ’unreliable blogs’ but neither the French Quels films pour les Enfants nor the Dutch Cinemagazine are blogs, and I would consider them rather reliable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[FOOTNOTEEbmeierAndrewsArayaArnold2018-1] Ebmeier et al. 2018.

[1]