Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 27	December 29 >

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.

Ma Chu Ka

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM during a WP:BEFORE. Only things found were film database sites, promotional material and articles about the actresses appearance in the film but nothing about the film itself.

Deleted in PROD, but restored. Nothing new added except a "nowrunning" review, but per this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Nowrunning, that does not appear notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is also a review by Santhosh Aechikkanam. The film only has 2 characters, so I don't see any problem with sources talking about one of them. DareshMohan (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two reviews exist, passes WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved by DareshMohan since nomination. Even if Nowrunning is not the best of sites, coverage of the production and of the film's particularities in reliable sources seem to make it notable enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per concensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:21, 29 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. The best policy-based arguments below are for delete, notably JoelleJay's. Daniel (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Lok Leung

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

fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been updated with additional information and sourcing since the AfD. Person in question reached the second round of the PDC World Championship and received decent coverage of their matches, particularly after beating a highly-rated player in their first game. Additionally, nom is to be biased against most darts articles on the Wiki. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 21:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are significant coverage, merely routine reporting. Also, your accusations of a biased nomination have no basis in reality and do not assume good faith. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully agree with 🇮🇪 TheChrisD. The article is about a relevant player and contains enough sources, there is not a single compelling reason to delete it. The only reason for the nomination is already mentioned - the bias of the nominator, whose targeted destruction of darts articles should be paid attention to. Penepi (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of the sources are significant coverage, merely routine reporting. Also, your accusations of a biased nomination have no basis in reality and do not assume good faith. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~All I see is your subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Penepi (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate which of the 12 sources in the article, or even how many of them, amount to significant coverage? By my count one of the 12 sources is exclusively about Leung, and it's nine sentences long. Hardly "significant coverage" now is it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not happy with the quality of the sources, why don't you go and find better ones? Because it would be too difficult? Is it easier to delete the article completely? Despite the fact that the player in question is obviously relevant? Such lazy behavior does not help make Wikipedia a better source of information; exactly the opposite. Penepi (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is up for deletion because the sources don't exist and the person clearly fails GNG. If you can find the sources, please do! Why are you being so pass-aggro! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~It was 10, but go off about your lack of unconscious bias. BRZ8 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Let's all assume good faith all around. It would be helpful to see some policy-based arguments and a review of the content addition since this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's my assessment of the sources in the article:

1: stats

. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 (PDC): non-independent

. 3: name in a draw

. 5: passing mention in routine event recap

. 8: passing mention in routine tournament recap

. 10: passing mentions in routine tournament recap

. 11 passing mention in routine tournament recap

. 12: dartsnews routine tournament recap + press conference statements from Leung

.
Also, dartsnews.com seems like a marginal source -- it's got two editors/writers, the head editor also runs several other disparate sports blogs/YT channels and only graduated with his BA in summer 2021. You can contact them via [email protected]... Not exactly the level of professional journalism expected for BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me laugh. Really. I don't know if you're just trolling, but, dear lady, please stick to your molecular biology and don't comment on things you have literally no clue about. Let me tell you a huge secret - darts is not a science; "passing mention in routine tournament recap". And what would you expect? A website dedicated to his one match analyzing it in a scientific manner? Also mentioning PDC source as non-independent. Extremely bizarre. This is sports and this is how sports news work. In this context I dare to borrow the rational argumentation of my fellow colleague: this is not a scientific article where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Hugo won his WC debut 3–2 against GVV. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. With this brilliant and absolutely not rigid approach, you would have to delete not only 95% of articles about darts players but about athletes in general. Penepi (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of darts players that will get more than a "passing mention in routine tournament recap". If passing mentions are the only coverage that Man Lok Leung gets then he isn't yet notable. "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." is what WP:SPORTBASIC says is the bare minimum and even that is not a guarantee of being kept as the clear preference stated in the same guideline is for multiple such sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also in this article there are sources which are not just a "passing mention in routine tournament recap". Penepi (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ u. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, you've already proven enough that you're really just a troll and you vent your frustration on darts articles. Penepi (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSPORT, WP:NOT, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:GNG. I see you've only !voted in 5 AfDs, so please also take a look through a few dozen delete-outcome athlete AfDs to familiarize yourself with the application of our PAGs in this area.

Passing mentions and discussion in routine event recaps are explicitly discounted from SIGCOV. The Professional Darts Corporation is a governing sports bod[y] and thus is not independent; its interest in a subject does not reflect the interest of the world at large, and it has a vested interest in promoting its participants. We had a global referendum last year that determined our athlete notability guidelines were severely problematic as-is and introduced several measures to ensure article subjects actually met GNG. We've since deleted thousands of athlete bios because yes, many of them are not sufficiently covered by independent, secondary sources in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do you really have nothing better to do? BRZ8 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG with no sigcov of him. I searched with his Chinese name and couldn't find any sigcov there either. Dougal18 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage about him is just passing mentions (i.e. him being listed in tournament schedules), not significant coverage. As such, he does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Note that competing in the 2024 PDC World Darts Championship is not a reason to keep unless he passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a PDC WC participant, who advanced to second round, is definitely notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norden1990, by what notability criterion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2024 (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 and expand from the French and/or Italian versions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calade

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

I can't find anything that this article meets WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal much at all. Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in fr:Calade are fairly convincing, and the le Bec en l'air book seems fairly in-depth too. Looking around I find books on pierre sèche that also cover this subject, and the odd archaeological reference on Persée, that indicate that even the French Wikipedia has not exhausted the sourcing on this subject yet. So this is a totally unreferenced (and somewhat misleading) stub, but with, since the French Wikipedia article has done, clear scope for expansion on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a tag to let French speakers know that they can expand the English page with the information of the French Wikipedia's page on the subject. I honestly don't know why it wasn't there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbie (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 16:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone willing to review the French sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify, as the sources on the French page look convincing and show notability. I also checked and the Italian version of the page also sources too. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:48, 31 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. based on the argument that this is a content fork and duplicates information available elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and metropolitan areas of the United States

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

This article is totally bizarre. All of the sources all come from one source which is the Census. It's probably a content fork of Statistical area (United States) which covers similar territory. Interstellarity (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates several other articles such as List of United States cities by population.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a redundant article that does not offer anything new or useful that can't be found elsewhere in Wikipedia Paul H. (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This table provides data from the United States Census Bureau in a structure that is more readily understood. I feel that this article is very useful. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 02:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A useless combination of List of United States cities by population and Statistical area (United States) § List of primary statistical areas. The table in § Rank table is notably difficult to parse and can only lead to confusion. However, I will note that the comment all of the sources all come from one source which is the Census is not a reason for deletion or even for the article being bad: the Census is the sole source for most of this data, and the data in Statistical area (United States) also comes only from the Census and the OMB. Dan • ✉ 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't make an argument other than "it's useful" but it's useful considering it formats information in a different way than the other articles - I think there was another similar article which is or was colour coded and would delete if it's duplicative of that. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant list. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2024 (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 Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga. I know that this closure will please neither those seeking Deletion or those advocating Keep. But I see it as an acceptable resolution that keeps the content of the article available in case any editor wishes to Merge part(s) of it to the target article which is quite short. I couldn't use the target page title proposed in the discussion as that page is a redirect itself, this is the page title of the actual article that exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Part-sourced to "royalpedia", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but how did the sock-puppeteer go back in time to 1768 to get Christoph Heinrich von Ammon to say "Princeſſe de Heſſe-Darmſtadt" and "Douarière d'Antoine Ferdianand Duc de Guaſtalle" in xyr book? That's a bloody good trick. (The article does state this information 3 times in various ways, to make it seem more substantial than it actually is; the original source not providing a biography of this person.) Uncle G (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A family tree published in 1768 does not establish notability. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it does rather undermine your point about "fantasies". Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm confident that the vast majority of the world will agree with me that Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is not a princess of Brazil and that her mother is not the Princess Imperial of Brazil, as claimed by royalpedia. Brazil has been a republic for over 130 years. DrKay (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - This quite fails to defend the claim that this is a fantasy made up by Royalpedia, unless the person running Royalpedia has (a) a time machine that can go back to 1768; or (b) an ability to consistently on-demand generate wherever I look a whole avalanche of books on the WWW to introduce all of the blackletter German, long "s"s, and the Vivaldi stuff; or (c) a mind control device to get the musicologist and the book scanners to all insert a fantasy person into otherwise real books. Any one of the three would be an amazing achievement. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's obvious to everyone that I was referring to royalpedia's unsuitability as a source. The only fantasy here is the one you've created in your own head about my comments on this article. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt is a historical person and is of interest for an online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little is actually about her specifically.2601:249:9301:D570:D85F:EAB4:D70C:52BB (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a historical interest. As she lived in the 18th century, her information hard to show online source and can only be found in old historical documents of Italy. She married a ruler of Guastalla, making her the queen or duchess of a dukedom and establishing her as a powerful woman during the era of absolute monarchy. She may passes WP:NPOL. She is also known as the "duchess dowager," and her portrait is collected by a museum. Some aspects of her life story can be found in Pompeo Litta's "Famiglie celebri d'Italia" (Famous Families of Italy), an Italian scholarly chronicle, and page 310 of "House of Hesse - Biographical Lexicon" by Hessian Historical Commission Darmstadt [de]. Finally, there have long enough her biographical information at page 119 of 'Die Selbstzeugnisse (1782 und 1793). Plus extra - details of her significant contributions to the Guastalla church can be found at [1]. In my view, her article should be preserved on Wikipedia. However, I still have no information or idea about Margherita d'Este, as I cannot find any sources in various languages. Thanks. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This user is now blocked for sock puppetry, disruptive editing, incivility, and harassment. DrKay (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article with newly found citation. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - All the information you've added is from a single footnote in the source. A footnote is a "trivial mention" and does not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is another refs! Shame on you, uncle! I'm an experienced editor of royalty; you don't need to teach me what it is. We have a history, and I'm also one of your victims. You ever make problem on many royalty articles, especially in Greece and non-English speaking regions, but I agree you have the right to do. You mentioned I added a single footnote from a source. This isn't an ordinary footnote; it has a source and looks fine. If you not happy with above source, sure here is offline References [Friedrich Karl Gullmann, History of the City of Augsburg from its Origin until 1806, Vol. 5, Augsburg 1818, p. 126, 347, 469 f.; Detlev Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, N. F. Vol. I, 2, Frankfurt/Main 1999, Table 249 (The Landgraves of Hessen-Darmstadt on the Brabant side); Peter Rummel, Article Joseph, Landgrave of Hessen in Darmstadt.] Sources for 18th Italian noblewomen are hard to find online; they are only available offline. If you dare, challenge me on Southeast Asian royalty articles (Thailand or Myanmar); I'll surely defeat you since I can access offline sources as well. You can't bully me like you did with other editors. I especially don't want to argue with WP:IDONLTLIKE editors/ problem maker, or administrators who abuse their power. I've saved many royalty articles in the past, and I won't change my vote on this article. Thanks. 1.47.144.97 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - You say, "We have a history". There is no history whatever between your IP and my account. You say, "I'm an experienced editor". There are very few edits from your IP. From these admissions, your over-reaction to my posts here, your topic focus, and the geographical location of your IP range, I deduce that you are a sock puppet of an editor I have previously blocked, most likely Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:150:0:0:0:0:0/46/Special:Contributions/Sir Raymon Adrian Siahaan. DrKay (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every source cited in support of her notability mentions her only in passing. She was the wife of a minor Italian duke and not herself a political figure, so WP:NPOL does not come into play. Zacwill (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- She was still a consort of a territory that was quite notorious for then. How could she not be notable? YorkDr (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After recent contributions, a lot of information has been added about her personally with additional citations so it isn’t just about genealogy and therefore does not fit WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Theodora is also a very notable person in history, especially for Guastalla. My other reason : This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life. It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls. The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented. Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance. Also she should meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG after her hosting masked balls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Azarctic (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hosting a few parties does not make the host notable or meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - “The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” Of which she did, so she should be able to get away with that criteria. Azarctic (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - She didn't make unique, prolific or innovative contributions, so she doesn't qualify. I don't think you understand what organizing a masquerade ball entails. It's just a grand-type of costume party. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that. But a masked ball is still a field of entertainment coming under as an attraction. and as you say “costume party” that is entertainment as well. I understand it isn’t unique or innovative, but it was still a prolific contribution as they were highly productive. Azarctic (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also, I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers. People in her position were public figures. Deletion serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above! She was a duchess of a noble court, not a housewife or a likely YouTuber. In her era, criticizing her or one of her family members would certainly result in beheading. That's how significant a duchess was. 2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/1.47.141.30) DrKay (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance. The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial. Name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I must argue against this, you stated “much of it is unsourced” but it’s only the last paragraph which is unsourced, and is only a small amount of the Wikipedia page. To add to that, she is a Duchess consort, which makes her very notable. She held very significant events such as masked balls. A lot of it indicates to her being notable. YorkDr (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have some laundry free analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life. It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls. The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented. Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance. Azarctic (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This editor has already declared above, under a different user name. DrKay (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I was giving another reason… why would you delete it. Surely this is just misusing your admin power at this point. Azarctic (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to raise my behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but be aware that your own behavior in voting more than once on this and at least one other deletion discussion under different user names will also come under scrutiny. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I voted twice then for two different reasons, and that is allowed isn’t it? Azarctic (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not, if in the first glance it's giving the impression that two different people are voting under two different user names. Since you were not responding to another comment, you should have added your additional reasoning beneath your original one and made it clear that it was you. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla (her husband) per WP:ATD. To one side, I have to comment on the apparent disproportionate hostility towards articles on royalty and nobility generally - as per Necrothesp above these were the public figures of their time, and they were notable simply by birth, like it or not: that's how the world worked. Ingratis (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not, however, the way that Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopaedia, not a genealogy database. Notability is not gained by mere birth. Notability is gained by documentation, and for a historical figure the fact that people are multiplying the genealogy in the article, sock-puppetteering in this discussion, and arguing about how people should be notable because they were born, got married, and died, tells us a lot about how little argument there is to be made the right way, by pointing at history books. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Socks aside, I still don't see a consensus here. But the discussion did garner a late Redirect argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla as a WP:ATD. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the arguments about nobility in this discussion are bogus and counter to basic Project:What Wikipedia is not policy of long standing, where we decided long ago that this was an encyclopaedia, not a dump of every person in every family tree. However, there are some counterarguments that hold water.
The footnote is not a mere passing mention. It occupies half the page and does support the stuff about the brother's house. That's one source. And there are others. There are history books with this person in. One can source this person's brief career in opera (sic!) from Talbot 2009, pp. 92–94, 101 for example, although this is not treated in particular depth with respect to the performer, as of course the book is about the music. This person appears to almost make it over the bar.
If I had found a third reasonable source, I'd be convinced. But I have only found a flood of genealogies where this person got born, got married, and died (many in blackletter German, which isn't making things easy), and only Talbot picking up on the opera and only as an aside in talking about Vivaldi and how this person's family performed some operas.
- Talbot, Michael (2006). The Chamber Cantatas of Antonio Vivaldi. Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843832010.
The sock-puppetry and the antics of Azarctic here and elsewhere do not help to show notability. In fact, they obscure it and are totally counterproductive. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, accusing me as being a sock puppet when you don’t have any idea of the whole story. And yes my vote does matter, like everyone else's. Azarctic (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband's article ("Personal life" section). The article has been nominated for deletion for coming on for a month, and an extensive search for citations has been made. A genealogy from 1768, a footnote in an obscure German book about a couple of balls in a provincial German city, manuscripts archived in the British Museum (all primary sources) and a passing mention in an Italian book about Franciscan credit and "Israelite lender[s]" really doesn't amount to much. I would also say the paragraph about the "Israelite" loans is very strangely worded. It looks like it might be machine translated directly from the Italian, which would account for its poor idiom and could be in breach of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect o husband's article - Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (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) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušanka Đokić

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Web of Science gives h-index of 2 and Google Scholar gives 4. Being the Principal of the Pedagogical Academy in Belgrade does not satisfy NPROF#6 either: 'Pedagogical academy' is not a major academic institute. The listed educational merits are also not enough to satisfy NPROF. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Serbia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable sources online that demonstrate her notability. Interstellarity (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provisionally. There does not yet seem to be enough evidence for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Other colleagues have already mentioned the reasons. Боки ^{Write to me!} 07:23, 4 January 2024 (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) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Kumara

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

Me and XOReaster have looked on scholar, and there's just not enough academic sources writing about this topic to write a coherent article about it. The majority of sources on this article are primary sources by theosophical thinkers, like Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme, which isn't really a good basis to construct an article out of. I think that a very selective merge to the main Theosophy article might be worthwhile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this article would benefit from having the Hindu and Buddhist sections expanded. That being said, the article's writing is cited throughout (with 47 footnotes), and these citations refer to the works of published authors.

This article presents some basic ideas about Sanat Kumar, from diverse primary sources. To believe that you could teach people about the foundation of ideas while erasing or denigrating primary sources seems naive. All critical theory is based, at its foundation, on primary sources, without which, it would collapse.

If you truly wanted to improve the article, you could do so, but all you can think of doing is denigrating, dissecting, deleting and destroying, while offering no cogent writing that enhances the article. Your desire to bury or censor the writing here (which spans the practical, the world of rituals, and the esoteric) seems to arise out of your own lack of familiarity with the subject, if not intolerance.

Sanat Kumara has been identified thousands of years ago, and is mentioned in the essential writings of Hindus, Buddhists and Theosophists alike. The existence of this being is considered highly important--among the religious and non-religious. (N.B. In contrast to the followers of distinctive religions, Theosophists synthesize religions of both the East and West, while focusing on ethics and methods of spiritual development).

Yet the subject matter remains largely unknown outside the East at this late date. (More recent notions refer to the idea of Gaia, which is equated with Prakriti, or the manifested, feminine aspect of the Universe: But the notion and identity of Gaia, which has become popularized in the West, is not synonymous to Sanat Kumar.)

You need not like this article but to erase or distort such ideas merely because they do not resonate with you, would be a loss for the many readers that would wish to learn from this article on a platform that is intended to benefit everyone. RayofLightning (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current text is fundamentally and pervasively unencyclopedic, so there is a clear argument for WP:TNT. In addition, the paucity of reliable, independent, secondary sources that treat the topic in any depth makes the need for a dedicated article dubious at best. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. In a quick survey of scholarly literature about Sanat Kumara (as adopted and modified by theosophic and Theosophy-derived NRMs since Blavatsky and Bailey from the actual Sanatkumara in Hinduism) I have found that in theory it would be possible to produce a NPOV stub about Sanat Kumara with material combed from various independent secondary sources (such as Lukas Pokorny's articles about Creme's beliefs; see also the Brill's Handbook of UFO Religions). But then, no independent secondary source treats Sanat Kumara as a topic of its own, but just as a prominent element featured in the beliefs of of NRM authors from Bailey to Creme. Thus, you will have a handful of mentions that explain the concept of Sanat Kumara, but always in a wider context. That's not enough to pass WP:GNG. There is of course the possibility to elaborate on Sanat Kumara in some broader article (e.g. Alice Bailey), but nothing in the article Sanat Kumara is salvageable to be considered for merging into another article, due to the entirely unencyclopedic, in-universe presentation of the subject. –Austronesier (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is primarily based on non-independent primary sources, and is written from a specific POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and independent coverage. Also see my comment at WP:FTN [2] there are other articles similar to this one that should also be taken to afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very limited merge. There is so much incomprehensible cruft here that I can't tell if there is anything worth saving. I suspect that the links to Hinduism and Buddhism are tenuous, or even spurious, although the German language article might be worth looking at to see if helps demonstrate anything real. If there is anything in it then that can be merged to other appropriate articles, if not already covered, but the bulk of this article about a non-notable concept in Theosophy and that needs to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2024 (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) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W34ED-D

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

Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same (and this one is defunct, too — it wasn't around for long). I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because of an apparent former MyNetworkTV affiliation (since that is not a 24/7 service, that implies they had to do something else for the other 158 hours each week…), but it's also been tagged as completely unsourced since 2019. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to pass the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 01:49, 30 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) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W22FA-D

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

Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same. I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because it was supposedly formerly and briefly a "CBS affiliate", but it appears the station (then W32DZ-D) simply carried "CBS Puerto Rico", the Lilly Broadcasting-owned cable channel that is essentially, if loosely, a localized variation of WSEE-TV, and any explicit sourcing in that realm seems nonexistent. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to pass the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 01:45, 30 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 undeletion of these articles. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W16CW-D

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

Low-power television station established within the last decade or so that appears to have only carried national services or other stations. We used to be a lot more lax on notability for broadcast stations, but even when the NMEDIA essay was given more weight than was warranted, many of these low-power facilities probably still didn't even meet that in reality. Suffice it to say, I can't imagine that the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG exists here.

Also being nominated are these commonly-owned stations, under similar circumstances:

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

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

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I neglected to mention this initially, but restoring previous redirects to TV Red Puerto Rico, the article for the station's owner, probably won't be a valid alternative to deletion — that article is currently up for PROD as even the company has no notability (failing NCORP). (Probably worth noting that most of these redirects were overwritten by IPs c. 2019, in circumvention of their inability to create completely new articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: None of these meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 01:40, 30 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) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaneth Viveros

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

Poorly sourced football BLP which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions (2010, 2014, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:16, 29 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) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayawati Modi Academy

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

Delete: Promo article, fails GNG and NORG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary, promo	Best School in Meerut \| DMA". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Name mention	2. ^ "CBSE Class X results: Many score perfect 10 in Meerut". The Times of India. 2016-05-28. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Name mentioned in routine news about an academic competion. Not SIGCOV	3. ^ "दयावती मोदी एकेडमी, मेरठ अव्वल". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Primary, promo	List of Schools in Meerut". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Database record	5. ^ "Best Schools in Meerut 2023 - Govt, Private, Fees & Admissions Process". Careers360. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Top ten style promo list	6. ^ Dewan, Vidisha (2023-09-07). "Top 10 Schools in Meerut 2023: CBSE, ICSE, Admission and Fees". Leverage Edu. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Primary, promo	7. ^ "I_Facilities". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13.

Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, found database records, routine mill news. // Timothy :: talk 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 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 keep‎. Proper procedure was obviously not followed here, but there is consensus the article subject is notable enough for an article. I will handle moving the page to the correct location shortly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Chongbin (Artist)

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

Artist whose artistic notability has not been shown. This article was declined twice in AFC, and then moved to article space, and moved back to draft space by User:Naraht, and then moved to article space again, so that this is a contested draftification. The title of this article appears to be an unnecessary disambiguation, since there is no Zheng Chongbin, but further review shows that Zheng Chongbin is a protected title due to repeated recreation, so that the addition of the disambiguator is gaming of titles. The article has been reference-bombed, so an assessment of the sources has not been done. If the originator thinks that this is a better and more neutral biography than the deleted pages, the proper procedure should be to discuss with the protecting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or request unprotection at RFPP, and if that is not successful, request Deletion Review, rather than adding a disambiguator to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, China, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep This is why the AFC process exists and this is the result when someone decides they don't like the result. There may *still* be room for an article on this person (Marina Bay Sands & Chinese Culture Center with exhibits), I wouldn't *reject* it in AFC, but if the author is unwilling to move to mainspace and then do it again, this is really the only option.Naraht (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still think the system is being bent by this, but at this point we are gauging the article, not the authors actions.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I performed some cleanup and corrected the sentence case on the disambiguation Zheng Chongbin (Artist) → Zheng Chongbin (artist) before realizing there was a WP:GAMENAME being played. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comments. I tried getting in touch with the editor who rejected one of the latest drafts about two months ago on the notability issue grounds asking to reconsider the decision and explaining why I believe the notability criterion is met. I still haven't heard back, so I did some further edits and published the article. It was not possible to move it into the published space under the original title, so I changed the title, provided that it would still be linked to the original article in order to allow for a quicker review (it has already been almost a year since this article was first created). When the article was removed from the published space, once again the notability issue was raised, which I wanted the editor to reconsider, so I moved it back to the published space and explained to the editor why I believe the notability is met (please note (1) the mention of the artworks in the academic sources such as the Yishu journal, (2) the presence of the works in the reputable museums like The Met, and also (3) the awards, such as the Asia Game Changer West Awards). Over the past year each time the article was rejected and the comments were left, I worked on each of the editing suggestions - e.g. the language has been made as factual as possible; about the presence of many references - this was done in response to the comment on the very first draft of the article asking to support each mentioned piece of information with a reference, so this is what I did. After so many editing rounds, I reached the stage that making further edits is very difficult - I believe the article is suitable for Wikipedia as it is now. However, if you have any further suggestions on what needs to be added or underlined in the article to make it more suitable for Wikipedia, please let me know. If you think there are too many references, I can delete some information which will remove some references. If you think it is better to continue working on the article under the original title rather than via the linked article, I am happy to do this as well. Please just let me know what exactly I need to do to get this article published. Thank you for your time and kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artbranch - You ask what you need to do to get this article published. At this point, my question for you is what your affiliation or connection is with the artist. All of your edits have been about this person or in support of your efforts to publish an article on this person. What is your affiliation with Zheng Chongbin? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also comment that you have made it much less likely that an article will be published about this person. When an editor tries to game the system, experienced editors can usually infer that they are trying to do something that is not consistent with improving the encyclopedia. When you discovered that you could not publish the article with the intended title, Zheng Chongbin, you should have asked what the problem was, rather than changing the title. But you probably knew why the title was locked. It would have better to ask questions earlier, maybe at the Teahouse, rather than pushing ahead. At this point, it is probably unlikely that you will be able to publish the article. But you can start by stating what your connection to the subject is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artbranch As mentioned above, the relevant determining factor in Notability for Artists and other artistic professionals is at WP:NARTIST. Copying from there:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't believe that anywhere in the article is a claim of any of the first three, and I don't really see anything that fulfills the characteristic of number 4, though that is a discussion that may make sense to conduct in draftspace.Naraht (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in both newspapers and academic journals. In addition to that this article passes part 4d of WP:NARTIST by having their work in the permanent collection of the British Museum, NY Metropolitan Museum, Marina Bay Sands Singapore, Brooklyn Museum, and The Art Institute of Chicago. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
San Francisco Chronicle	Newpaper is not tied to subject	Reporting appears to be reliable as it's talking about a group exposition.	The article focuses on Zheng Chongbin and his life/work	✔ Yes
University of Edinburgh	There does not appear to be a connection between the author and the artist	Although not peer reviewed it was reviewed by a committee	The entire dissertation is about this persons work	✔ Yes
San Francisco: Asian Art Museum	Website is talking about the installation of a site specific work of art at the Asian Art Museum	The material does not appear to be biased and is factual	The coverage is only about the artist and the site specific art work they created	✘ No
Ink Studio	Art critic is not connected to the artist	Art critic has written about multiple artists	Entire topic is over the artist and their work	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor has only 37 edits so it is highly unlikely that they would know what to do if they found they couldn't create an article at the desired oage title. Like any other AFD, can the focus here be on whether the article subject is notable as established by the sources included in the article? There is time to instruct the editor on what SHOULD have happened. I understand that things didn't go as Wikipedia policies states they should go but I don't want the editor's conduct to overshadow evaluation of the article. The main article page title was protected in 2017, a lot can happen over that stretch of time since then in whether there is SIGCOV of an artist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am asking whether the editor has any connection with the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, lets assume good faith and focus on the article at hand. If you think the COI is that important then take it up over at WP:COIN or their talk page. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like the editor to identify the three or not more than five references that provide reliable significant coverage of the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the collections brought forth by Dr vulpes, that establish notability per NARTIST criteria #4: British Museum, NY Metropolitan Museum, Brooklyn Museum, and The Art Institute of Chicago are solid notable collections. The DesignBoom citation I'm not so sure about. But nevertheless they do meet the SNG for Artists which is stricter than GNG. Netherzone (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Robert McClenon, that the editor disclose whether they have a COI for the sake of transparency. If the editor does, it's really better to disclose than not. There are some editors on WP who may be willing to mentor or instruct the editor on best practices in the future. Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The assessment by Dr vulpes is correct. Other than the sources already mentioned here or in the article, my searches are showing other possible sources, like there is a good paragraph in The Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition catalogue "Ink Art: Past as Present in Contemporary China". Elspea756 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all very much for your helpful comments and swift feedback. I can confirm that I am an independent researcher and do not represent the artist. I am new to writing on Wikipedia and this was the first and only time I tried to write an article here - that’s why, I focused this past year in my spare time on polishing this article and taking on board all the feedback that I have been receiving while also trying to self-learn about the writing guidelines on Wikipedia.

As mentioned, I asked the editor who rejected the article most recently to kindly reconsider the decision and explained why I believe the article meets the Wikipedia criteria. Since I haven’t heard back in two months (and it’s already been about a year that I have been working on this article), I found out that there was an option to have the article moved to the Wikipedia space for a swifter review. As someone who is new to writing on Wikipedia, I wasn’t aware of the term ‘game the system’ - when I changed the title, it said that the article would still be linked to the original one so that a search for the original title would be redirected to the updated title of the article. The intention here was to get the swifter review.

I am willing to take feedback on board, that is why it is important for me to understand what exactly needs to be improved about the article as I believe that the general guidelines are already addressed in the article. For example, in regards to the point about ‘such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’, this criterion is met through a series of reputable references drawn from the impartial academic scholarship - the subject’s artworks have been the focus of articles such as (1) Claypool, Lisa (2019). "Liquid Space: A Conversation with Zheng Chongbin". Yishu. 18: 100–107. Yishu was established in 2002 and is a reputable peer-reviewed authoritative academic source that is in the university libraries worldwide (e.g. SOAS in London). Another example would be (2) Tedford, Matthew Harrison, ed. (2011). Zheng Chongbin: White Ink. San Francisco & Santa Clara: Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco & Silicon Valley Asian Art Centre. This scholarly source also meets an additional criterion of notability, namely ‘such work must have been the primary subject of […] an independent and notable work (for example, a book […]’. One more example, among others, would be (3) Chen, Abby; Kovskaya, Maya (2021). Zheng Chongbin: I Look for the Sky. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum. These references exemplify the reliable significant coverage of the subject.

In regards to the criteria ‘The person's work (or works) has […] been a substantial part of a significant exhibition’, this is addressed in the section ‘Exhibitions’. The list there aims to show that the artist’s works have been the focus of a number of solo and group exhibitions at leading non-profit museums worldwide. A recent example would be I Look for the Sky at the Asia Museum of San Francisco (solo exhibition). Another example is Ink Worlds: Contemporary Chinese Painting from the Collection of Akiko Yamazaki and Jerry Yang (2018, Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University). The artist also created an important permanent art installation at the Ryosoku-in Temple, Kennin-ji, Kyoto. This also meets another criterion, i.e. ‘The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument’, in this case, outside more conventional museum and gallery spaces, and in the wider realm of a significant historic Zen Buddhist temple in Kyoto. Additionally, the artist’s illustrated work Wall of Skies was selected by the artist-curators Raqs Media Collective to be part of Why Not Ask Again - the 2016 Eleventh Shanghai Biennale.

Speaking about the criterion ‘been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums’, the artist’s works are in the museum collections worldwide - The Met in New York, LACMA in Los Angeles, British Museum in London, M+ in Hong Kong etc. The artist’s list of awards, which are unpacked as part a separate additional section is also another indicator of the notability - e.g. the recent Asia Game Changer West Award speaks to the fact that the subject ‘won significant critical attention’ and speaks to the critical recognition of his works.

Initially, I was more explicit about the notability and used adjectives like ‘notable’, ‘significant’, ‘worldwide’, but I kept on receiving the feedback that the article needed to be more neutral.

Once again, thank you everyone for your comments and kind feedback. I am happy to take on board any further feedback that would help improve the article on which I have been working for the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. vulpes, meets WP:GNG. Plenty of sources. Speedy Keep? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills WP:ARTIST per the sources provided by Dr. vulpes and Artbranch and because Chongbin's work is included in the permanent collections of multiple notable art museums. Mooonswimmer 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, Zheng Chongbin should be unprotected and this article moved to this title Jumpytoo Talk 21:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, keeping (if done) should be to without a dab term.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Maximilian of Württemberg

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article even contains phrases like "It is unknown where he spent his childhood..." and "Little is known about his ... life at the moment" to highlight its triviality and nonsignificance. DrKay (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No "inherent" notability with this nobility; by this point, Württemberg was ruled by a king, and as such duke appears to be an honorary title. Curbon7 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NPOL. Could also pass GNG outright, I'd like to see what his entry in the Biographisches Handbuch der württembergischen Landtagsabgeordneten 1815–1933 says. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was unable to find any sources, checked Google, Google Scholar, and the newspaper archives. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a member of the Estates of Württemberg he meets WP:NPOL, surely. Ingratis (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I can see an argument that he scrapes by on WP:NPOL grounds, although I given what the article says about his attendance it seems unlikely that he was a notable political figure. The best place to cover him I think would be an article such as Second Silesian Line, House of Württemberg or Carlsruhe Line, House of Württemberg covering Duke Eugen of Württemberg (1758–1822) and his descendants who may not be notable enough to justify a standalone article. That's how Maximilian is treated in sources such as [3] and the literature it cites. But no such article currently exists, so per WP:PRESERVE let's keep the cited material we have. Jfire (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's important to keep information like this on Wikipedia because it provides historical context and helps us understand the lives and contributions of individuals like Duke Maximilian. By preserving his story, we can learn about the royal lineage, cultural influences, and societal roles of that time period much like his involvement and part in Estates of Württemberg of which he should meet WP:NPOL. It allows us to appreciate and study the past, which is valuable for historical research and education. Azarctic (talk) 1:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
It may benefit you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2024 (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 ALZip. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EGG (file format)

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

I do not believe this file format is worth a Wikipedia article. It does not have reliable sources having only a Korean store site and two dead links, violating WP:RS. The file format is not notable, being used for maybe two programs, violating WP:N. Furthermore, the article is just written like an advertisement for the compression program that makes it and it detracts from the more noteworthy Python egg format. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ALZip. It doesn't merit a standalone article, but would fit perfectly in the ALZip article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ALZip, as an WP:ATD. The file format is not notable, and the article does not contain any sourced content suitable for merging. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ALZip: or Merge if someone finds encyclopedic information about the file format. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that redirecting or merging would be a better solution StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (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 Stereoscopy as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binocular dysphoria

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

Someone's pet neurological hypothesis... PepperBeast (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so I did find some passing mention of this in peer reviewed articles but the statements are made in passing and are not cited. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of WP:MEDRS sourcing. The article itself states "At present there is no peer reviewed evidence of this condition." SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stereoscopy: while not an actual medical condition, plenty of mentions in both technology ([4], [5]) and mainstream ([6], [7] - I know; sorry) media means we can't just sweep this under the carpet as "someone's pet neurological hypothesis". By this point, it is a notable neurological hypothesis, if nothing else. As such, MEDRS doesn't really apply, and we need to go back to GNG. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 3 January 2024 (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueCentral

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

Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Australia. PepperBeast (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete An expert on the source material may be able to bring it up to notability standards, but it does not pass NCORP right now and it seems unlikely that it can. Happy to hear input from anyone with additional insight on this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swan505 (talk) 03:56, 30 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T.S. Idiot

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be mostly an autobiography created by a user with the name of this person. Although this person is a performer, there is a lack of notability. No wider impact of significant secondary sources beyond self-promotion and marketing. Seaweed (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's an exhibit at an art gallery, a personal Weebly site, and some promotional listings, but not any significant coverage to establish notability. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate significant notability and the sources are mainly promotional. The article is an autobiography originally made by the user of the same name as the subject and it has been nominated for deletion a couple times before and the user appears to recreate it every time. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first deletion discussion didn’t have much participation, so the author/subject was able to request undeletion. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:YOURSELF. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubaidullah Shamsul

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

Non notable WP:NFOOTBALL, not mentioned in coverage of one article source, the other is a roster. BEFORE search shows only passing coverage in [8], [9], and [10]. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Malaysia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Polite reminder to nominator that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur; this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC or any other relevant notability policy.- UtherSRG (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2024 (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aarati (TV series)

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

non-notable web series created as part of a sock puppetry spam project, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutan (actor). microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the WP:REFBOMB of sources about the trailers in two different languages and the sources pretty much saying exactly the same things as each other, there is no other significant coverage. There is nothing to say that this requires its own article yet. At best, WP:TOOSOON and the socking (a massive indication of COI) makes me even more keen to have this deleted for now. I also note that every source is written by an anonymous correspondent, which can also be a sign of paid promotion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:12, 29 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 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asian Para Games closing ceremony

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

Redirect should be restored. Previously PRODed, controversial page (see the edit history) but does not provide any sources. Restore the redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony per Special:PermanentLink/1182487023. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Events, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony; there's some coverage, but likely fails to satisfy WP:NEVENT criteria for its own article, particularly on the grounds of WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. Left guide (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per Left guide. Svartner (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per Left guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony, which already covers this ceremony. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward FitzClarence, 6th Earl of Munster

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

Does not cite any sources, does not appear to be notable, pretty clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and England. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he sat in a national parliament, then he is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now - I haven't been able to independently verify any of this information through a cursory source search. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Members of the House of Lords pass WP:NPOL. There is not a ton in terms of coverage, but I think he narrowly surpasses WP:NOPAGE with his Hansard entry and this obit. Not many British newspapers of this period are digitized on newspapers.com, sources likely offline or in other repositories. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was a member of the House of Lords and meets NPOL.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as other have noted the fact he was a member of the House of Lords - a national legislative body - would seem to mean he passes WP:NPOL. Dunarc (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2024 (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!} 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeepLearning.AI

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

Smells of spam, wonderful spam. Cited sources are prehistoric, nothing not self published floats to the surface. Ihave removed some of the mor ridiculous 'content' from this article, btw. TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only passing mentions, not enough reliable independent coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some further references on notability. The OP of the AFD very much doesn't use the neutral language that they envision for the article itself (furthermore typos). There is no issue with the article, the subject is of note, and most sources are from 2023, one is from 2017 when the program was founded, hardly "prehistoric". 191.102.59.2 (talk)

replying to I added some further references on notability. Seeing on the contributions, you haven't edited the nominated article. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Article is of dubious notability, There are multiple hits on Google news, and about that the subject corporated with Coursera and AWS to launch programs. Beyond that are mentions. It is unclear whether the sources passes WP:GNG or not. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement and it doesn't seem notable. Of the sources, one predates the course, two are just primary sources for course description, one is a pseudonymous review, and the Lewkowicz and Lucariello articles are written like a press release. A quick search doesn't turn up anything better. I don't see this article ever being anything other than an advertisement and/or a reproduction of the course descriptions. Ligaturama (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although DeepLearning.ai is not significant in and of itself, it is a notable course within Coursera. It may find a better place as a shortened summary on the Coursera page. Ardent Vim (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:1900:116B:ED5F:16C5:82CF:2421 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. There's no significant coverage about it online. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 2 January 2024 (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) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Body powder

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

Unnecessary stub, variant of far more widely known talcum powder DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not really any valid reason for deletion given, and body powder seems to be a topic of discussion in the medical field [11] Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources cited (which I don't have access to) appear to only refer to the subject tangentially; I'm having a hard time verifying the claim that "body powder" is an alternative to talcum powder (more likely that talcum powder is a type of body powder). The reference mentioned by Geschichte is a conference abstract and therefore not RS. Since the article is little more than a dictionary definition and does not cite any significant source, this seems like a delete to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into talcum powder, if applicable. Doesn't need to be it's own article. TheBritinator (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheBritinator, that Merge is impossible because talcum powder is a Redirect, not an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, hence why I said if applicable. Otherwise I'd just say Delete. TheBritinator (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2024 (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qonto (neobank)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and France. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and promotional in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as coverage exists but it is in French and behind paywall. This article in Les Echos notes that it is valued at 4.4 billion euros, i.e. unicorn (finance) - a good indicator that we can uncover good amount of coverage if any of us do a proper WP:BEFORE.

I understand this is a case of WP:TNT but there is a well-written article about this topic on French Wikipedia, fr:Qonto. Why not just translate? We know that French Wikipedia's notability criteria is very tough and requires "at least two independent and reliable secondary sources, in national or international publications, spaced at least two years apart and centered on the subject". I don't know if copying all the references from French Wikipedia here is a good idea or not. In any case, it is an obvious keep. 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of importance and nearly no encyclopedic information in the article. Just a vague description as French online payment institution for freelancers and SMEs. Undescribed product (A vague description of it has been removed because it was promotional.) and a list of amounts of money raised. Janhrach (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to do a source analysis but I see not a single reference in the article passes WP:SIRS. Not one. WP:THREE is the consensus based best-practice for proving an article is notable. If there is references, now is the time to prove it. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 2 January 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STEM in tennis

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

Completely unsourced so it's original research and opinion. I originally moved it to draft space but no real improvements were made. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and NOTESSAY, sources about specific aspects cobbled together in one article despite no source about it as a whole. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article might be mergeable if there were any sources but as it stands it's not suitable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:RS. Feels like someone uploaded their school essay as an article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Judging by the user's only two edits to other pages, which are reviews of other new users' drafts, and one their reviews at Talk:STEM in tennis, this is obviously a class assignment. How can we stop this junk and teachers having newbies start their own new pages without going through AFC? Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:OR per the above. Left guide (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is plainly a WP:NOTESSAY violation. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (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 Flutter Entertainment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjarabet

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. References are routine business news, many company event listings and non-specific news scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (country). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious promo attempt, completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flutter Entertainment as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flutter Entertainment as WP:ATD. Per nom and above, fails GNG and NCORP. // Timothy :: talk 08:26, 30 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!} 07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayoe

AfDs for this article:

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

Got a G4, but some of the same issues as at the August AfD including poor quality copyright infringing sources (on the sources, not the editor) (admin only). New sources don't adequately add to/address the issues raised at the AfD either, and I can find no evidence he meets N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 11:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Ghana. Star Mississippi 11:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked google and the newspaper archives and was unable to find anything that would establish notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
quick question is how many newspaper archieves do talk about ghana hiphop? if you checked google you would have noticed Rayoe's song miracle road released in 2023 went viral in ghana this year racking up 500,000+ views on youtube. Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:NMUSICIAN here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair to say there is nothing to establish WP:NMUSICIAN for Rayoe. Rayoe meets lots of these criterias in ghana. he has been placed in rotation nationally, his song miracle road, by a major radio station such as 4styetv in ghana , adom fm, peace fm in ghana and his song miracle road went viral in ghana racking up 500,000 plus views on youtube Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Bismark S. Sosu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 19:06, 1 January 2024 (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) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Lobo

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

WP:Before on Google News has nothing apart from routine coverage and his interviews. Google Scholar and JSTOR have nothing about him.

Source 1 - Music listing
Source 2 - Movie listing
Source 3 - Movie listing on Rotten tomatoes
Source 4 - is a book authored by the subject
Source 5 - looks like a comic?

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMG. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Music. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete additional search at ProQuest pulled up nothing. Mach61 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quite apart from anything else, this should never have been published in the first place, on account of the author's paid-editing status. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes i have mentioned as paid as per wikipedia community guidelines for paid. Wikipedia i have read carefully Wikipedia guidelines on paid Wikipedia has been Mention you need to mention on your profile that's your Doing paid editing and i am following guidelines of Wikipedia i am not violating aby Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you Surajsinghl (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Other than socking... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a vanity page Nswix (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this isn’t paid editing, this is clearly a vanity page. Search engines don’t pull up ratios relevant to the subject, and the sources don’t say much either. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:04, 1 January 2024 (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 Football in the State of Palestine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank Second League

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Palestine. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Football in the State of Palestine - not independently notable. Giant Snowman 13:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Significa liberdade, when you say I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languages do you mean that you did not check for sources in Arabic? gidonb (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb: I have not looked for sources in languages other than English. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: Are you aware that people speak Arabic in the West Bank? Do you know how to look for phrases in Arabic? gidonb (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb: Yes, I am aware that people speak Arabic in the West Bank. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Coverage about a football team may be available in the language spoken where the team is located (in this case, Arabic) or in other languages if they play teams from other regions. As stated in the original nomination, coverage on the team may be available in other languages (including Arabic). However, I do not know how to search for sources in languages other than English, especially languages, e.g., Arabic, that do not use the Roman alphabet. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The process that nom describes above (and unfortunately it took two rounds to get this information out in sufficient detail) seems well intended but CANNOT be accepted as a serious WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speedy keep eligible since others have voted against keeping it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't against keeping deleting? I think everyone else wants this redirected. No problem with that. gidonb (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per Giant Snowman. Zero sources on the article. Svartner (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't look like there's enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2024 (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!} 03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Bhooshan

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

An IAS does not automatically make someone notable. More WP:SIGCOV is required to support his notability. Macbeejack ☎ 06:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Macbeejack ☎ 06:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would not be discussed if it were an American civil servant. However I am not familiar enough with the Indian media landscape to locate sources of improvement. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 21 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!} 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable functionary, reads as PROMO. Sourcing is simply discussion of things the person is involved with or discussion of promotions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 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 keep‎ considering article improvements. Daniel (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wingo (shooting)

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

Topic of the article existed for less than a year, cites only a single source and fails WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, United States of America, and California. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a number of citations which are now in the article, several of them (Daily Colonist, Florida Wildlife) quite substantial. I'm prepared to change my vote if there are other policy-based objections to this article but it's certainly not uncited anymore. Oblivy (talk) 07:11, 21 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!} 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And Rename. My first thought was that this was an article about one more mass shooting, this time in place named Wingo. Perhaps rename it to Wingo (sport shooting) or something like that. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 30 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 Sentry Insurance as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dairyland Insurance

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Wisconsin. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I was also unable to find sufficient secondary coverage establishing notability. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sentry Insurance. All extra I found were press-releases or reviews. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:55, 27 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!} 06:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. I was able to find this article but I don't think it is enough. 72.172.120.125 (talk) 21:17, 29 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Pană

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

The subject, a Romanian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Romania. JTtheOG (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was unable to find coverage. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:12, 30 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 VK (company). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legend: Legacy of the Dragons

AfDs for this article:

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

This game doesn't seem to be notable. I searched on Google news and it's all just pages about different games with the same name. Also, this page is written like an advertisement : things like "The most notable difference in Legend: Legacy of the Dragons to most other games of this genre is the fight system which is animated and allows for great tactical depth." - "great tactical depth" is subjective. Finally, most of the article is about game mechanics, not reception or development or anything real-world related. Jannaultheal (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VK (company) (i.e. by creating a "Games" section). It got mentioned here and here and here, which is enough to show it exists and merit a mention in the article, but doesn't appear standalone notable, though other language sources may exist for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per sources brought by ZVCQFX. Merge discussion can be left to other venue like the talk pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 06:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. Disagree with the assessment that it should be kept since only GamesTM is WP:SIGCOV. OceanHok (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The sources lack reliable significant coverage about the game itself. Of the above sources, none review the game. Only the Games Industry article is a reliable source that describes the content of the game. There is enough to adequately merge into the developer's article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2024 (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!} 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Méndez

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a Puerto Rican footballer which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV of the subject that I found in my searches was this, which is eight sentences of independent coverage (by my count). Other than that, there was this short interview and a couple of other passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (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 per criterion G5. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ‎[reply]

Sheela Pandit

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

Alot of discussions have been made that un-elected politicians are not notable as per WP:NPOL. This article is also same. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Bihar. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero evidence of notability. This was declined at AfC a few times, then yesterday the author had it G7'd, only to create it in the main space instead; that's just blatant gaming of the system. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NPOL. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️)
Comment now speedied as G5. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 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 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!} 05:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Cruz

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

Article challenged for notability since 2016. Fails WP:NACTOR. I was unable to find any references that shows that the actor or his films are notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its hard to understand why this article still is live since it was tagged for deletion in 2016. The is nothing to indicate WP:Notability meeting WP:GLG. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:15, 30 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!} 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Font

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP who has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2015, 2016, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:16, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Aston

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

Run of the mill journalist, WP:GNG not demonstrated. Also is an WP:ORPHAN. Swan505 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. However, as the page creator is, I think, topic banned from AfD, in the interests of balance, I'll report his view. I placed a notability banner on this in October and he removed it with an edsum: there is clearly no notability issue, clearly GNG is met by the significant coverage of this subject provided by the independent publications Crikey and the ABC through MediaWatch. I did not take to AfD because the journalist had a column that appears to have been notorious enough that Mediawatch wrote an article about him on his departure calling him "the notoriously acerbic man-about-town who writes Rear Window for The Australian Financial Review." I disagree that this is sufficient to meet WP:N. It is not clear what we can say in a BLP about the subject from this, and a mention in Australian Financial Review would be more appropriate if the column was so notorious, but a couple of articles expressing relief that he has gone do not show WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and are themselves primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Sirfurboy. Being featured on Mediawatch is not sign of being notable or meeting WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree with Sirfurboy. Journos talking about other journos generally is not a sign of being notable or meeting WP:JOURNALIST. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 3 January 2024 (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!} 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Childs

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

I did not see significant coverage of him after a Google search so, I vote for delete as a biography is not needed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 21 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!} 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural keep~~, gah, the subject of this article is probably not notable, but the nominator has been banned at ANI for disruptive editing including a campaign of tendentious deletion nominations. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say "No" to a procedural close. बिनोद थारू has started a large number of AFDs and participated in even more. We only close AFDs started by block-evading editors or if no deletion rationale has been presented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll change my vote to delete. Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NACTOR. The subject has no significant coverage in secondary sources and has only had minor roles in notable productions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:12, 3 January 2024 (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!} 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clorène Rateau

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

The subject, a Haitian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:16, 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 merge‎ to Secession in the United States#State secession. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 U.S. state secession petitions

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

Let's put this to the WP:10YT. This fails WP:NEVENT. I remember it, Obama won reelection, some upset conservatives created petitions on a website that doesn't exist any longer, they received official responses from the White House, and that was that. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Secession in the United States#State secession then selectively summarise (post-AfD) at Secession#United States. Muboshgu's point on the 10-year test is spot on: all of the sources presented are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and there has been no WP:SIGCOV since then. All recent RS I can find are mere mentions, and the entire thing fails WP:NEVENT for (amongst other problems) WP:EFFECT, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other users. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epic non-event. (In fact, this is the first I've heard of this nonsense.) TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other users. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (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!} 05:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butler–Drake football rivalry

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. We have far too many of these synthetic rivalry articles... SportingFlyer T·C 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV about the rivalry itself. The current sources is essentially a compilation of reports of non-notable individual games and database sources glued together here on Wikipedia in a way not done by any outside sources. User:Let'srun 18:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. As far as I can tell, all of the sourcing available for this matchup amounts to primary sources, statistical databases, and run-of-the-mill sports reporting of individual games and seasons that lacks the requisite overview-level coverage of the matchup/rivalry as a whole cohesive topic needed to establish notability. Left guide (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding WP:SIGCOV, i.e., in-depth coverage about this as a notable rivalry. What we have is two FCS programs that (a) meet regularly because they're in the same conference, and (b) share the same team nickname 'Bulldogs'. What we don't have is the needed SIGCOV or other objective indicia of a notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2024 (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!} 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballydonoghue GAA

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

Insignificant presence for this sporting club and appears to fail GNG. Andre🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Ireland. Andre🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In my own WP:BEFORE, I found and added a number of sources which support the text and contribute to a claim to notability under GNG. At the very least there is sufficient notability/refs to support a merge/redirect (as an WP:ATD) to Lisselton#Sport. Outright deletion doesn't appear the correct action and isn't one I can support. Guliolopez (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - county championship winning team, and current senior champions for North Kerry. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded introduction and added a History section with sources. Club very relevant due to recent successes. Fox&Pheasant 21:23, 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 no consensus‎. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baysted

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

Subjects fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Just another run-of-the-mill video game employee lacking in notability and failing to assert notability. As for reliable sources, he only has one outside this article, but that does not assert notability as well. Article has been created by the subject, a clear-cut COI case. Despite being PROD deleted in 2009, this article has since been recreated in 2011; despite this, issues still remains unaddressed since 2020.

This subject's bio is unsourced, nothing is except credits for his work consisting of those from official websites and IMDB, which is neither a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSICBIO applies. In this short biography it states that Baysted has been nominated for a number of awards - at least some of which are notable including the Golden Reels. There is potential for meeting WP:MUSICBIO#8. ResonantDis_tortion 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it's best to 'clean' out that article and start again by a 3rd party editor from scratch rather than it be left as some WP:COI vanity edit. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Deletion is not cleanup. Article is now stubbed. ResonantDis_tortion 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple nominations for notable awards (WP:MUSICBIO#8); segment on national radio (WP:MUSICBIO#12); multiple secondary coverage in specialist zines (WP:MUSICBIO#1); music created for multiple notable works (WP:MUSICBIO#10). Article has been updated to demonstrate all this, and has been cleared up of non-RS. ResonantDis_tortion 11:37, 11 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} 23:06, 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!} 23:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current sourcing is not good. The Sound Architect and M Magazine are mostly interviews (primary sources). The "Contributors" source is of course primary, as is the University of Chichester page. I am therefore instating the {{primarysources}} tag. Behind the Audio leans towards acceptable whereas BBC Radio 3 seems to confirm WP:MUSICBIO#12. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 21 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) 03:45, 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 merge‎ to Soundscape R.Ed. This was a toss-up between No consensus and a Merge. Ordinarily, I'd relist a discussion with this level of participation but it's already been relisted three times so that is not an option. If you believe some content should be Merged to additional articles, I say feel free to take that on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundscape Digital Technology

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

Unsourced article for 15 years, an excessively detailed history of a sound/recording technology company. I can find a couple of 1990s articles online in a specialist magazine, but this wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:NCORP these days. Time for this article to go? Sionk (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Technology, Computing, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXISTS. Ordinarily I prefer to add links to ill-sourced articles that are up for deletion before voting, but there's a disconnect here between the sourcing and the article itself. This article is about two things, the SSHDR1 and the company.
The history stuff is unsourced (maybe scraped from somewhere, copyvio style, no obvious candidates) and probably would need to rely on primary sources. It seems a shame to lose all this information if it can be sourced. Mackie has published a number of press releases and company announcements (it's a listed company) which could help for verifiability.
For notability, I think the extensive coverage of products over more than a decade would suffice. Here are a series of sources, there are more:
- Sound on Sound profile of Soundscape R.Ed [12]
- 1993 Music Technology Article on HDR system [13]
- Audio Media magazine review of R.Ed (a reprint provided by the company but appears to be an independent review)[14]
- Sound on Sound 1995 article with a few sentences on Soundscape systems [15]
- Sound on Sound April 2006 review (post-Mackie) [16]
- Making music with digital audio : direct to disk recording on the PC, book has multiple instances discussing Soundscape products [17]
I would note that these were easily found, suggesting the nomination would have benefited from a better WP:BEFORE exercise. Sound on Sound is a specialty magazine, but its not a minor publication, and there are others.

There are also two potential merge targets Soundscape_R.Ed and Soundscape SSHDR1 both of which are poorly sourced but several of these sources extensively discuss those products and would help save them from deletion. I'd be happy to see the three merged. Oblivy (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 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!} 23:28, 20 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) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Soundscape_R.Ed as ATD. Since there are already pages for the products, a merge is the best solution all round. In order to meet GNG/NCORP guidelines for an article about the company, we require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. As per GNG/WP:NCORP which are the appropriate guidelines for both companies and for products, there is very little information available on the company but extensive reviews on the products. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 2 January 2024 (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!} 03:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTP Commander

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

There is no source in the article, and no source that meets the notability requirements can be found. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability . 日期20220626 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising blurbs from the software company still exist all of these years later, but there's pretty much zero independent documentation that isn't just a directory listing with a company URL in a list of "Here's where you can get FTP clients." I thought that I had found a book with a non-directory treatment, but upon reaading it turned out to be 2 sentences: It's like other FTP clients; and it's for Windows. So I'm not finding in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, either.
Deleted edits here and at InternetSoft Corporation lead me to think that there was probably a conflict of interest in this article's creation, too, disguised by picking a new username in 2007 and trying again.
Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 14 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!} 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. A search revealed the sources discussed by the nominator, enough for a merge if there was a suitable target, but as it stands there does not seem to be an WP:ATD. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:46, 2 January 2024 (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. If editors want to still pursue a possible Redirect of this article, you can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Hezbollah

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

Factually inaccurate article. Cited sources have no information besides including the word Syrian Hezbollah inside them. There is no group called Syrian Hezbollah. Ecrusized (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note It also appears that the article was created by a now blocked editor. Ecrusized (talk) 21:27, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war, which is the proper article for this topic. There is no distinct Hezbollah organization operating in Syria as is the case for the Kurdish Hezbollah in Turkey, for instance. yaguzi (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is, in fact, a "Syrian Hezbollah" that is not the same as the Lebanese Hezbollah; however, it is a network of militias, not a single group. For anyone interested in the topic, I suggest read the work of Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi who has researched many militias which operate as part of the "Syrian Hezbollah" network. Applodion (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It belongs to Hezbollah, just as their militants in Lebanon, see ISW entry [18] and the linked book, as well as our page Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war. Yes, it includes a number of different groups, but they operate under the same general command and umbrella. However, nothing prevents us from creating a separate page about Hezbollah in Syria. If so, it should be significantly expanded. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the "Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war" article is focused on the activity of Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria, not the operations of the Syrian associates / puppets of Hezbollah. Thus, "Syrian Hezbollah" should focus purely on the Syrian associates, allowing for two distinct articles. Applodion (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Applodion Durranistan (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons AHI-3000 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:44, 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 keep‎ per improvements to page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 04:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander Hess

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

Disputed draftification, which is why it is now at AfD. I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Theatre, Sexuality and gender, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 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!} 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sources 1 and 2 might be enough to meet generic notability. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 20 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!} 23:32, 20 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) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added reviews of Hess's works (including a recently published work) from Kirkus Reviews and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I feel he's notable per WP:NAUTHOR, more specifically because of the critical attention his work has received. Bridget (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:59, 31 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War of ideas

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

This article is an essay that builds heavily on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article is about a vague general term that overlaps with Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power. There was a deletion discussion in 2010 that resulted in a "Keep" verdict based primarily on arguments that there are sources out there that use the term "War of ideas". However, it seems pretty clear that while sources use the term, there is no coherent, consistent use of the term. It's also clear that the general ideas associated with the term are already covered in more clearly scoped articles for coherent concepts (such as Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power). Since the 2010 discussion, the fact that the article still looks like an WP:OR essay should make it clear that there is no consistent core concept or idea on which to build a proper encyclopedic article. There are therefore good reasons to reconsider the status of the article and in my view delete it. The mere existence of a general phrase does not mean it merits a Wikipedia article. The phrase "war of ideas" is similar to phrases such as "battle of wits" and "war of the wills", yet we would not accept creating an article for the latter two phrases, even if there are countless sources that use those phrases. Thenightaway (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please fix the header~~ Thanks 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Philosophy, Military, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Information warfare -- this is duplicative of the concept cited in that article, which is far too heavy on a strictly military usage of the concept. A merge would improve that article and reduce the complexity of the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:33, 7 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!} 20:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate subject, as one can conclude by looking at the results of Google books search. There are even books entirely on this subject, for example [19]. In addition, this page maybe useful to creating page Political ideologies that we currently do not have (currently a redirect to Ideology#Political_ideologies). My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of good sources in the article, plus many more online. AfD is not for article improvement. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 20 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!} 23:32, 20 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) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very different article from Information warfare, the merge target. Information warfare article talks about use of propaganda during war while war of ideas article talks about (ideological) war with propaganda. War of ideas does not have any problem with WP:OR otherwise. If you read it, all non-trivial sentences are sourced. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think that the discussion would change significantly with a final relist so I'm closing this now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herwig Zahorka

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Czech Republic, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- 5 books, 250 articles and a decoration by Germany suggest notability. I agree COI is an issue, but should not be decisive. This makes me wonder how comprehensive nom's investigation was. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to change my position but I didn't think quantity of work determined if a subject is notable. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Article is poorly-written, but can be cleaned up if anyone is available to do so. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Changing my position based on the changes that have been made to the article. I'd like to see more references in the article before changing to keep. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:50, 27 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!} 03:22, 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 no consensus‎. Again, this article can't be Merged to a nonexistent article. Maybe bring up that possibility should that article ever be created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wide-angle Infinity Display Equipment

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

I do not think that his article should remain, seeing as there is no good way to find reliable sources for any of this. I have no records that the company made this product and therefore no way to verify anything. Another thing is that this topic does not warrant it's own article, and should instead lead to the page on general aircraft simulators.

Delete Effectively unsourced (the one cited reference is not really about the subject), and no information about this topic found. It therefore fails WP:GNG. Poorly-written, too; I can barely tell what the article is about. If someone who knows the subject can insert some references and clean up the text, I may reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surprisingly, I found this obituary about the person invented it [20]. We'll still need more for sourcing, but there might be something here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obituary above, then [21] and [22] that talk about this "thing". I don't understand much of it, seems to be about the display used in flight simulator machines to train pilots. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is an obituary about the person who invented it, the only other resources are links back to this Wikipedia page. Gbrickner (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the peer reviewed journals talk about it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Despite the paucity of sources available, I'm inclined to keep it. This was a significant innovation by Rediffusion in the field of flight simulation, which, after the patent expired, became the industry standard for projection systems on full flight simulators. Before WIDE, there were a variety of visual systems in use on FFS, all technologically inferior, none of which survives today. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:09, 16 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!} 02:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. If no further comments, I will close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at sources like ISBN 9780521357517 and ISBN 9780470754368 it is clear that this should be at the title that is currently a redlink in the first sentence of the article, because this is discussing a subject under one of the many trade names (even from Rediffusion, which had two WIDEs and some predecessors such as Duoview, according to some of the books that I've just found; and Rediffusion isn't even the only company here). I am confident from even a brief amount of research that this could be refactored into an article that doesn't address cross-cockpit collimated display systems under a marketing trademark title, and that there is sourcing from quite a lot of technical literature for doing that and making a proper main-article for Full flight simulator#Collimated cross-cockpit displays that discusses things like the slightly imperfect simulation that collimation results in, weight and mirror design advances using mylar film, and all of the other things that are in the books. Although it will probably be another 16 years until someone takes the hint from this discussion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all fronts: this article should be merged into Cross-cockpit collimated display, once such article is created. My earlier Keep vote would only apply until that happens (yes, quite possibly in 16 years time or so...) --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:33, 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 redirect‎ to The Purge (TV series). Content can be Merged if the desired Merge target article is every created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Leader Tavis

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

Good Leader Tavis is a minor character in the first season of The Purge; while there are technically sources there for the character, I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with, given this; merging to create a List of The Purge characters page would make more sense. ICOTEYE (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 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!} 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It seems to have a lot of decent content, but it does not seem notable on its own, I think the merge option makes a lot more sense. Geardona (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Purge (TV series). WP:BEFORE didn't show significant coverage. Editors can decide what is the appropriate weight to give the different characters at the target article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:11, 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 no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiir

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

Fails NFILM. No reviews found from RS. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CptViraj (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or at the very least redirect to Satish Rajwade#Filmography, already there with a~~ another one can be added, which, with what is on the page, is a good start.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Changing to keep (I had missed the 12/17 edit mentioning 2 nominations). (edited 1/2)[reply]
Keep. The review in the article from Marathi Movie World[23] looks reliable to me as does the one in Gulf News[24] I found with a quick google. That's two without even evaluating the TOI coverage or searching in the Marathi language. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 @Mushy Yank

Source Analysis

The Times of India - Press release so not independent per WP:NFSOURCES

Marathi Movie World - See this Disclaimer of the website "Marathimovieworld.com does not make any warranty that this site or its content, products or services will meet your requirements, or that the site will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free. We do(es) not make any warranty concerning the accuracy of the information contained on the site, any products available for purchase on the site, or the (visual) any visual or audiovisual materials offered on or presented through this site.". This clearly means it is unreliable.

Gulf News - Reliable but not enough alone to pass NFILM. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure your assessment of what appears to be a generic boiler plate disclaimer of warranty means the site is an unreliable source. These kind of disclaimers can be found on many sites. UptonSincere (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either that this disclaimer gives any reason to dismiss the source at all.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for the Redirect suggestion? Just want editors to consider ATD if this article isn't Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Satish Rajwade#Filmography: Fails GNG and NFILM. Agree with LordV's source asseessment. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Article about a social media post by actor containing a movie poster used to promote the film. Fails WP:IS, Fails WP:SIGCOV nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "9 years of 'Gaiir': Sandeep Kulkarni shares a throwback poster as he reminisces his time on the Marathi film sets". The Times of India. 2018-11-06. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
Contributor review	2. ^ "'Gaiir' is a well presented movie". 2009-11-06. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
Mention of film a pair of actors previously were in. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Ankush Choudhari and Satish Rajwade together once again through 'Autograph'". 2016-06-11. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
Nothing about the film meeting WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ "Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 TV Serial - Watch Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 Online All Episodes (1-1) on ZEE5". ZEE5. Retrieved 2023-12-17.
Name mention in promo piece, Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Editorial, M. M. W. (2010-11-01). "'Zee Talkies-Lux' Maharashtracha favourite Kon". Retrieved 2023-12-17.

Above and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 07:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue:, I don't see an analysis of the Gulf News source[25] I adduced above which seemed to me the best, most reliable coverage of the film. Am I missing it, or did you skip it for some reason? I agree that most of the other sources are poor and don't object to a redirect if the Marathi Movie World is considered user generated. I really wish someone could do a search in the Marathi language, since I'd expect some coverage given the English language footprint, but I can't object to a redirect unless some sources are actually found rather than assumed. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason to consider Marathi Movie World user-generated. Film articles with 2 reliable reviews are in general kept, especially when other type of coverage exists so that the page can be expanded. The mention of 2 nominations at Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? (that I confessed I had missed....) makes it in my view better kept than redirected.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (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. clpo13_(talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gansz Trophy

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV independent of the schools. Per WP:NOPAGE, this can be covered briefly at the articles for the respective schools. Let'srun (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, United States of America, Maryland, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first glance, the coverage doesn't look too deep, but there's a lot of it. Haven't had a chance to review it all and make a decision, but here are some examples found in my WP:BEFORE search: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really a few editors reviewing these sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a tough one. I reviewed the sources presented above and in general, each piece of coverage is about 80% run-of-the-mill sports reporting with 1-2 short paragraphs at the end actually discussing the trophy/rivalry as an overview-level topic. As for the references currently in the article, the Dallas Morning News piece similarly offers one short paragraph discussing the matchup, this one is merely a stats database, and the last two are primary sources published by the involved schools' websites. Left guide (talk) 23:41, 29 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!} 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Raquel

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

Pornographic actress that doesn't pass WP:NENTERTAINER. I've conducted a quick Google search and haven't found any reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NENTERTAINER. I did not find significant coverage or any reliable secondary sources on the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:37, 2 January 2024 (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!} 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Women's World Floorball Championships

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

Event is happening in 2025 as of now it's WP:TOOSOON Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Women's Euro 2025, 2025 World Men's Handball Championship, 2025 World Women's Handball Championship, EuroBasket 2025, 2025 ICC Champions Trophy, 2025 World Aquatics Championships, 2025 World Athletics Championships, 2025 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship and 2025 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship are some of the numerous tournaments that will be in 2025 that have articles. As I have already mentioned, you can't just pick and choose. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way WP:TOOSOON. WP:OSE isn't a reason to keep this, it's a reason to get rid of most of the other articles listed in the comment above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.TheBritinator (talk) 16:43, 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Uhai (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Blanco

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails every point of WP:NACADEMIC along with WP:GNG. Uhai (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Spain. Uhai (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not make bad faith accusations that I did not perform a WP:BEFORE when this was a misunderstanding of arcane notability criteria significantly different than other notability criteria. Uhai (talk) 03:16, 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 merge‎ to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Cloud (steamship)

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

Transport ship used by the Confederates and captured during the Civil War. From the same sockmaster that brought us CSS Ida (AfD discussion) and CSS Manassas (clipper) (AfD discussion). A sock was responsible for CSS Jeff Davis (1863 steamship) (AfD discussion). As it is, we have no context for this vessel except for the three sentences taken from DANFS. Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies devotes a single sentence to this vessel. Lytle's "Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807-1868" lists 5 White Clouds and a White Cloud No. 2; this is apparently a different White Cloud as that one was in Union service during the 1862 Ft. Donelson campaign but this one was not captured from the CSA until 1863. There's so little to work with her that I think expansion would be almost impossible due to the inability to distinguish this ship from others with the same name. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect If significant coverage in reliable sources (and, no, including it in a registry book doesn't count as significant coverage) can't be shown, then it fails to meet WP:GNG, the basic notability requirement considered before even any possible higher requirements, like WP:CORP for corporation articles. I feel like there's quite a few insignificant ship articles that are sourced only to single lines in registry books floating around that should be redirected to some list article instead. Silver seren^C 01:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. Too little sourced info or notability to justify a standalone article. Merging to the list page would allow retention of a sentence or two of referenced info, and put this vessel in appropriate context as one of dozens of similar craft that saw similar Confederate service. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The tricky part is that it would be problematic to leave a redirect pointing to the CSA ships page at the current title. There were other steamships of this name, including the apparently distinct Union one referenced at the Battle of St. Charles article so there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here for the leftover redirect. I also have concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT; there were scores of ships used in this fashion by the CSA and there needs to be some sort of inclusion criteria for the list. Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess, though there's probably not an infinite number of such vessels. Might be an interesting starting point for a future Confederate steamship editor? But perhaps I'm too optimistic. As a second choice, we could merge the one or two lines of additional info on this article into USS New Era, where the capture is already mentioned. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See AFD CSS Manassas (clipper) Same blocked sock master. Not enough content to keep this. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy unless proper sourcing can be found. Article is completely unsourced and fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy per Euryalus, with or without redirect - the sourcing for that is fine. If there are multiple targets, better to replace with List of ships named White Cloud if other targets materialise. Davidships (talk) 15:20, 29 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 CSS Manassas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Manassas (clipper)

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

I don't see how this can be notable. We've got the short DANFS entry, which is what the article consists of (public domain copying). Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies simply repackages the DANFS info into other words. This US gov't public domain source has Former USLHT Minot, now known as CSS Manassas, is placed under the command of Lieutenant William H. Murdaugh, CSN by Flag-Officer Samuel Barron, CSN. Though her final disposition is unknown, she is known to have seen service off North Carolina for the Confederates as Manassas into early 1862. While that source does solve DANFS' confusion about the lack of a revenue cutter named Minot by stating that she was a lighthouse tender, this CS service was either almost entirely undocumented or rather insignificant. Nothing in Trotter's Ironclads and Columbiads; nor in Barrett's Civil War in North Carolina. Aside from the two above, I can only find passing mentions to its seizure. Searching for this vessel as the lighthouse tender Minot also turns up no further in-depth coverage. The fact that I could turn up what I could for CSS Junaluska but almost nothing for this one reinforces my belief that there is simply not enough known about this vessel to indicate notability. Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. The editor who created this is a sock, and was just blocked. The sock master account has also just been globally locked. I don't see any encyclopedia advantage in keeping this. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: AFD White Cloud (steamship). Same blocked sock created both. — Maile (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The status of that editor is irrelevant here. - Davidships (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CSS Manassas, unless more sources are found. The DANFS covers both ships in one entry, so we should probably do the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into CSS Manassas (with or without leaving a redirect); it is important that this vessel's existence is included to avoid confusion betweeen the two vessels. The content may yet garner some modest expansion - the late Tim Colton found a little data on Minot here (60ldt, built 1857 [for the United States Lighthouse Board] and sold in 1860). - Davidships (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the CSS Manassas article per Davidships. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2024 (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 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bond markets in East Asia and South East Asia

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

Although the Asian Development Bank in the external links is a reliable source I am not sure that is enough. Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable in itself. I am not an expert but nowadays don’t they talk about individual countries like ‘panda bonds’ and so on? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a manual. The article is entirely unsourced, and reads like original research, and it seems like a very promotional tone. I cannot find any information about this topic that isn't routine news coverage or how-to manuals. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems almost like a guide/press release to me, if it could be significantly rewritten it could maybe qualify (but from a source look-up I am not sure there is enough), but for now it seems like a lost cause. Geardona (talk) 03:40, 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.