Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 19	November 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, India, and Rajasthan. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More citation added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani. Article now passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rasnaboy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations. // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Saurashtra[edit]

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

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. 1 para is about the language Saurashtra in general. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, India, and Gujarat. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional citation added to establish notability. The first para simply paints the background and can be removed if deemed unfit. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani. Article now passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rasnaboy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations. // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Fijian[edit]

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

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the 2 transalations on its own accord. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More citations added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani. Article now passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rasnaboy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 27 November 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!} 22:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relational meeting[edit]

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

No claim of notability. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a phrase, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable dictionary entry. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:50, 27 November 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. This has been an extended discussion, featuring a lot of good-faithed contributions from editors with a wide range of viewpoints, and I thank everyone for their collegial participation below in what is obviously a very sensitive topic.

There have been a number of arguments advanced on all sides, but the primary focus as this debate has developed has been around (for those advocating 'keep') that the general notability guideline has been met and that coverage exists in multiple reliable sources, contrasted with a belief (for those advocating 'delete') that an insufficient number of the sources cover the concept of denial of atrocities, and therefore this is a synthesis and constitutes 'original research' as defined by Wikipedia's policies. These two arguments were explored signficantly more than any alternate rationales to keep or delete, and on that basis I have focused my assessment of consensus on these two basis primarily.

Reviewing the discussion, it is clear that the two arguments were both made in good faith and enjoyed some level of support. Critically, neither was disproven by their opponents to the point that they should be disregarded by me as the closer. My assessment of the relative strength of the arguments is that those advocating 'delete' did a better job of refuting the core argument to 'keep', than vice-versa. However, it definitely wasn't completely refuted or disproven, and so I considered it at the next stage of the consensus-reviewing exercise.

Having established that both key arguments to delete or keep are valid in terms of our policies & guidelines and neither was sufficiently refuted to be discarded entirely, I then have to assess the relative support each position has. Ultimately the discussion was deadlocked in the sense that there were competing views, and neither 'side' was willing to budge on their interpretion of P&Gs as they relate to this article. In this situation, the next step is to assess which argument had more support.

On this marker of consensus-finding, I find that the 'delete' rationale had more support from those who explored the subject adequately. To be clear, this is not a head-counting exercise at this point in assessing consensus, and I did indeed apply lower weight to a significant number of comments which did not advance this or any other argument that was relevant. I discounted (note: not "disregarded", but "discounted" - ie. applied reduced weight to) a larger number of 'keep' contributions than I did 'delete' or 'merge' at this stage, as they did not offer an especially compelling rationale for keeping or deleting per our P&Gs. The margin was not as clear as many 'delete' closes we see at AfD, but I found it to be sufficient to allow consensus to be established.

In summary:

Both core arguments for keep and delete were presented in good faith and neither was completely refuted or proven to be an unreasonable interpretation
However, the 'keep' argument was more significantly countered throughout the discussion, therefore making the 'deletion' argument stronger
On the arguments, the 'delete' held slightly more support of those advancing positions that aligned with P&G

On these basis, I find a consensus exists to delete and have subsequently closed the debate as such. Daniel (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

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

There is no significant coverage by reliable sources on a trend of "denial", therefore this does not fulfill WP:Notability. Moreover, this is a collection of supposed "denials" which goes against WP:Original research. And finally, the sources cited are mostly low-quality, such as Hindustan Times, Jewishnews.co.uk, and Radar Online. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 6 November 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 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have not found any RSes providing significant coverage of denials of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel as a phenomenon. Rather, the bulk of what's been reported (and what is cited here) are routine news stories about Hamas itself denying it had killed civilians (which is not really a topic that needs its own article). There's no need for an article just to list every time a Hamas spokesperson or conspiracy theorist (e.g., Piers Corbyn) says something bad. Giving what he said or what a Yale student publication did (or did not do) the same weight as what Queen Raina said is absurd. This article is (and will continue to be) an amalgamation of OR, using poor quality sources alleging antisemitism or misquoting sources to allege that particular people have denied atrocities in Israel (see, e.g., the talk page discussion about the Queen Raina quote). voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ on several policy grounds. Merge to Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (see below for !vote change, but all the reasons for this article to not exist are still valid). First, the article as presented cannot escape WP:NPOV problems as long as it focuses on only one side's denials. Atrocities against civilians are happening daily from all possible sides of this horrific and senseless conflict. In a few years, a good article can be written about denialism in general for this conflict, but that brings us to the second problem, WP:TOOSOON. Lastly, this is pure WP:SYNTH at this stage. There is no scholarly discourse (yet) about denials as a group or collective concept, though there might eventually be as denialists on all sides pile on with the spin. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge based on superb suggestion from BlakeIsHereStudios (see timestamp 17:53, 16 November 2023). The Disinformation article can be (and still is, more or less) NPOV; it has a far less incendiary / POV-pushing title; solid RS support that article; and there is already scholarship building around that concept, whereas this one has little more than a collection of one-off denials. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is simply not a significant viewpoint. JDiala (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There are a lot of people in the west who deny that it happened. I think the article has merit but should be improved. TimeEngineer (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources such as [1], [2], [3]. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Denials are flying in all directions, of course. That does not make an WP:OR aggregation of news about disparate denials of this, that or the other suddenly its own topic when there is no indication that it is. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A phenomenon that, unfortunately, receives wide media coverage. Eladkarmel (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm aware that the phenomenon is new, but certainly withstands WP:NOTNEWS criteria with nearly one month-long coverage by sources and has wide coverage with Israeli government acting specifically against denial in an organized way (screening of event videos and recording accounts by survivors).GreyShark (dibra) 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More sources that exclusively deal with the denial of the incident are available now -UtoD 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is routine coverage. I agree the second source could establish notability, but that's just one source. Fox News is not reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news citation was replaced by The Guardian. [4] Marokwitz (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references include The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, and Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post. And the IDF is directly talking about it.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And the IDF is directly talking about it." - makes it less credible surely? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing credibility, we're discussing notability.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. There is very little in what amounts to credible coverage. Additionally, it's not really encyclopedic and these types of articles lead to a good deal of subjectivity and become battlegrounds. Some of the sources seem to be circular (source A says it, then source B and C say it based on source A's reporting), which doesn't portend significant coverage. I would encourage !voters to review voorts's lists of sources below. Also, per @Last1in, pure WP:SYNTH at this stage. There is no conversage (yet) of denials as a group or collective concept - it's not really anything other than media coverage of who said what at this point. It's not a "thing" (like holocaust denial is). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Source quality is terrible, material is a WP:SYNTH collection of anecdotal WP:NEWS examples of largely individual acts of denial, with little to no analysis of the topic cohesively as a subject, and even if such a topic were to exist, it would need to reflect both sides of this conflict to be WP:NPOV, not be totally one-sided. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strike out double vote, you only get one vote. Why you would put this in the middle of the discussion in any case? // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Lost track there, but strike the vote, not the comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per numerous commenters above: the article is pure WP:SYNTH and it's not evidently notable based on sources of acknowledged reliability. Certain content from the article could be merged into other articles about the war, maybe, if it's sufficiently reliable. If we open the door to this type of article in this subject area, don't be surprised to see a dozen articles pop up with titles like "Denial of atrocities during Operation Protective Edge", "Denial of atrocities during Operation Cast Lead", "Denial of Israeli atrocities during the Second Intifada" etc.... (actually, come to think of it, if there's notable commentary on any of these topics, they could make for worthwhile articles in any event). WillowCity^(talk) 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be a good article in a few years, but as of today its just a list of "This person said" statements. Furthermore some statements like one by Queen Rania of Jordan or about Yale news mentioned in the article dont even qualify as denial. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced and documented by several sources. Definitely worth keeping since it's a phenomena that also holds historical value in conjunction with the rise of Fake News and the information Era. Indeed it has also been attributed to be a major factor in the rise of anti-semitism and is also crucial in understanding the Israeli response. There are ample sources to support this, this is an historical phenomena that is also highly reflective of the current progression regarding the War on Information and the digital Era, therefore this is an article of high interest and high potential. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you referring to that has discussed this as a phenomenon? So far, I've only uncovered this Haaretz article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in agreement with what has already been said above about naming this as a definitive trend and the quality of source issues. numerous articles exist on Wikipedia where people can learn about current events and political responses and it does not make sense to me based on all that I have read on this topic to carve this out as a separate phenomenon and article, at least not at present without appropriate secondary analytical sources rather than a "this person said" list of statements, which would seem to me to reflect Original Research. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
Anadolu Agency		Per WP:RSPS.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial.	✘ No
CNN			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial.	✘ No
CNN 2			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial.	✘ No
Washington Institute 1	? Organization is associated with AIPAC.	Organization associated with AIPAC and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED).		✘ No
The Economist			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial.	✘ No
Radar Online		Self-described as "the most influential and trusted pop culture, celebrity and entertainment news brand in the world" and no clear editorial standards.	Tabloid-style coverage of an interview with a Hamas leader.	✘ No
Hindustan Times			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion).	✘ No
Daily Beast		? Per WP:DAILYBEAST.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion).	✘ No
Ynetnews		? Unclear whether there are editorial standards.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Knesset member).	✘ No
Jewish News		? Unclear whether there are editorial standards.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn).	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
JPost 1			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn).	✘ No
Times of Israel 1			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Roger Waters).	✘ No
JPost 2			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Does not even establish that anyone is intentionally denying any atrocities.	✘ No
The Guardian			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.	✘ No
Fox News		Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.	✘ No
JPost 3			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.	✘ No
Times of Israel 2			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.	✘ No
CBC			Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.	✘ No
Rep McCaul statement		Statement by Member of Congress.	Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Political statement made for political purposes.	✘ No
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs	Strong association with Netanyahu and his government.	Associated with Netanyahu / biased and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED).		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
Haaretz				✔ 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}}.

Here is my source assessment. Most of the sources cited are examples of either Hamas or random people denying particular atrocities (or denying things that were later debunked, like babies being decapitated). Of the sources cited in this article and this discussion, only one establishes GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid effort voorts. One point to add is that even the Haaretz article doesn't make claims that for example Queen Rania was engaged in some sort of "denialism". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is discussed widely, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. // Timothy :: talk 16:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't want to do another chart: #11 is not independent because it's reporting on the position of the Israeli government. #13 (Spiked) is a very biased op-ed. #17 is also an op-ed by a former Israeli government official. The remainder of the sources have either been dealt with in the table above or are reporting on specific instances of denial (or instances of actions being construed as denial, e.g., protests against the war), but do not identify "Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" as a phenomenon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources per above. I don't think this is OR either although the title is quite unwieldy. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voortz. WP:GNG is not met and people are mischaracterizing the sources. Flip^and Flopped ツ 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Apart from the arguments others have made, this article is a violation of WP:NFRINGE. Parham wiki (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate in what way is it a violation of WP:NFRINGE? Marokwitz (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: The opinions of Hamas and others (ie Israel is lying, they were not civilians) are fringe theories. Parham wiki (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what 'violation' did you found? The policy mostly warns about using proclamations of fringe theory adherents (in this case, the opinions of Hamas and others) when determining notability, I don't think this is the case here. Marokwitz (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am for deletion, I agree that NFRINGE does not apply here. NFRINGE doesn't mean we can't write articles on fringe positions. It means that we can't write articles about fringe theories based solely on the positions of those advocating a fringe theory. The argument for keep here has been that the fringe position (denial of events during the October 7 attacks) is notable as a phenomenon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fully expected to argue to keep based on the title, but the sources presented are insufficient, and I'm unable to find better ones. The sources presented thus far (I checked most of them) are either individual examples of denialism, or of representatives of the Israeli government describing what they see as a broader phenomenon of denial. Israeli government sources are primary sources, regardless of what you believe about their reliability; and Wikipedia cannot synthesize individual examples into a general phenomenon, even if there's enough sources for individual editors to conclude there is a pattern. Really, this is a case of TOOSOON; a year or two from now there will be published scholarly material analyzing depictions of this conflict in the news media and in the popular imaginary; once those sources are written, this sort of topic can certainly be explored in an encyclopedic manner. But even before that, we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Voortz. Loki (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources. We could revisit removal in future months, but considering the short amount of time having passed, the quantity of reliable sources warrants inclusion. Drsruli (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts and others. - Ïvana (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources, just a few examples: [22], [23] , [24], [25], [26] , [27].
- Note that many above arguments are invalid since content does not determine notability, per WP:ARTN. The might be a case for renaming the article, though. Marokwitz (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument isn't that the content included in the article makes the topic not notable. The argument is that the articles being cited for notability don't define a phenomenon of denial occurring, but rather report on particular instances of people denying a wide variety of things (or, in some cases, making statements that don't actually deny anything but are being construed as denial), and that combining those sources to establish notability is OR. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, #24 is reporting on a statement by the Israeli ambassador, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. It's been covered by reliable sources but I think the page would work better as a section on the page about disinformation on the war instead.

BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does it make sense to merge Holocaust denial into an article called Disinformation in the Second World War? Those seem to be different topics ... This article is about historical negationism and not about "disinformation in the war". Marokwitz (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strongly oppose merging, they are two different topics, albeit related. Per WP:SUMMARY it should be briefly summarized in Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and the reader directed this article. The above refs I listed show their is ample material and sourcing to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 21:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a significant viewpoint. Combefere ★ Talk 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, particularly Homer and Timothy. The Kip 03:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good sign when the source assessment comment includes a denial of a Hamas atrocity. Keep, clearly notable topic, covered by sources. --Yair rand (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yair rand: What did I deny? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Voorts: I was referring to the beheadings, which have been confirmed. ("An international group of forensic pathologists also have confirmed babies were found decapitated, though it's unclear if that happened before or after death.") Sorry for the unnecessarily confrontational tone. --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Yair rand: No worries. I didn't find your tone confrontational at all. And to be clear, the articles being cited were about people questioning the beheadings right before the Biden administration and others admitted there was no evidence of beheading of babies at that point in time. I wouldn't call questioning an unproven assertion denialism. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and shares similarities with Holocaust denial. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no lack of participation here but I also don't see editors who advocate Keeping this article address voorts's persuasive source analysis tables. I don't think anyone is denying that sources exist that provide examples, at least to someone, that a denial of atrocities may be happening in statements made by individuals or organizations, the question is whether or not this article is OR and whether "denialism" is being discussed as a notable and coherent concept on its own. There is a huge amount of literature on Holocaust denialism and an academic study of that subject and so a comparison can't be made to this very recent phenomena. I'd like to see editors arguing to Keep this article go beyond WP:ITEXISTS statements and address the problems pointed out by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voorts, and merge the relevant info into Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Can anyone give a reason why this can't be covered at the parent article? THat article still has room to grow.VR _talk 04:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts and Vanamonde (we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those).—Alalch E. 09:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts, invented topic without any sourcing discussing it as a topic whatsoever. nableezy - 02:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely per WP:GNG, wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources: [28], [29], just two examples. GNG has been met.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be deleted- I believe so-- because we can create many (extra) other similar articles if we want to keep such denial... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Maybe this topic will become notable in the future, but as it stands now, this page probably doesn't have enough material to stand on it's own. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Timothy. Yes, the atrocities have been denied by Hamas itself and many others. There is a significant coverage of this in RS, which makes this denial highly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This continues to be actively discussed in the media, which clearly shows this is a notable topic. A few more to add to the above:

[30], "In the wake of global silence and denial of Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, efforts are being made across multiple echelons to raise awareness, including a civil commission to document the crimes, international diplomacy, and a campaign by tech industry executives"
[31], "Global women’s rights groups silent as Israeli women testify about rapes by Hamas"
[32], "UN and Women’s Groups Ignore or Deny the Systematic Rape of Israeli Women by Hamas"
[33], "Deborah Lipstadt struck by ‘speed and intensity’ of Hamas atrocity denial"
[34], "World's denial of Hamas's massacre of Israelis is a betrayal"

You can disagree with the point of view or the conclusions of the above but it is clear this is a notable topic being discussed widely in the media. // Timothy :: talk 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of these seem to be a reliable source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention none of them deal with the topic exactly; they are quotes. Read WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you need are sources treating "denial" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something. That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through SYNTH. The Haaretz piece comes closest, but its just one news article. But you need sources that treat this topic as a topic, not just discussing individual examples so that Wikipedia editors can try to invent a topic by combining things that never refer to the overarching topic. nableezy - 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, providing individual examples of denial (per the sources above) is fine, just as it is fine on pages like Armenian genocide denial or Holodomor denial. There is absolutely no requirement that every source must be exclusively or specifically on the subject of the page, treat the subject as the whole, etc. It is enough that it says something on the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no source which describes the phenomenon of denial at length, instead of just minor passing details, then it is WP:SYNTH. There are entire monographs dedicated to Armenian genocide denial and Holocaust denial. Tryin to make a change :-/ 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, there are no "entire monographs" dedicated to denials of these atrocities yet. This is because they are current events. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tryin to make a change :-/ 04:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, and no user who has read and understands WP:SYNTH, much less WP:GNG, would say such a thing. The topic is what must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You can say "oh no", but you are quite wrong. And this is basic English. nableezy - 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To continue my source review (don't feel like doing a table):

30 reads like an op-ed and mentions denialism in passing.

31 is largely about what groups haven't said, not what they are saying.

32 is a DAILYBEAST op-ed.

33 is an article about the claims of a US government official, which is not independent in the conflict and thus not independent for notability purposes.

34 is another op-ed, and includes what Queen Rania said as an example of denialism, which as I've discussed above, it was not, making me question its reliability or ability to treat facts in an unbiased manner. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Editorials" and opinion articles can used on WP pages per WP:V, especially if written by experts. And in many cases they should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but op-eds and editorials are generally not secondary (or arguably independent) sources for purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, for a topic like "denialism [or historical negationism] of X", one would expect secondary, independent (e.g., scholarly or critical) sources, rather than primary, biased (e.g., op-eds) sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Denials exist but pretty sure that denials as a topic per se is just not a thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's more RS (helps that the PA decided to issue a denial of some of the events of that day as well): Guardian, I24, The Forward, Ynet, Yahoo, in addition to dozens of op-eds published in RS speak of this unfortunate phenomenon. Longhornsg (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per @Nableezy, [W]hat you need are sources treating "denial" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something. That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through WP:SYNTH. Tryin to make a change :-/ 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do? Longhornsg (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what we have now is a collection of WP:OR examples that allows a back-door in to various BLP violations. I notice that among them are claims of rape denial - but how can we be calling this "denial of atrocities", when the Israeli government itself is still investigating whether rapes occurred? We are still too close to these events for the full account of what happened to have even been written yet, let alone real secondary sources to have been written about denialism. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Coto[edit]

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

Rediret to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 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!} 22:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubner's conjecture[edit]

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

This conjecture is not notable. There are no results at all for "Dubner's conjecture" in Google Scholar (the same search without quotes returns a variety of unrelated stuff), and the original paper by Harvey Dubner only has a grand total of three citations.

I made this article into a redirect to List of unsolved problems in mathematics#Prime numbers shortly after I came across it due to these issues, as well as due to the issue that most of the article was unsourced and could have well been original research. Some time later, OwenX restored it with the edit summary "likely non-notable" is not reason enough to get rid of a sourced article. Please take to AfD if you believe we're better off without this article. I still think that this conjecture is very non-notable, so I think we should still redirect it to List of unsolved problems in mathematics#Prime numbers as before. Duckmather (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Duckmather (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for bringing this here, Duckmather. I don't feel strongly about the article either way, although if changed to a redirect, a better target may be Goldbach's conjecture, where it is already mentioned in more detail than it is in List of unsolved problems in mathematics. Owen× ☎ 22:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of unsolved problems in mathematics is supposed to be for unsolved problems that have articles unto themselves, or at least problems about which there is a lot to say. Otherwise, it would balloon beyond all possibility of management. If this article shouldn't exist, then List of unsolved problems in mathematics shouldn't mention it. The term "Dubner's conjecture" is too obscure to even serve as a redirect. The basic idea isn't even due to Dubner. (To indicate the obscurity of the topic: Richard K. Guy's Unsolved Problems in Number Theory notes the existence of that paper (p. 107), but it doesn't discuss the paper's contents.) We can possibly say something about this at Goldbach's conjecture#Related problems, but the text currently there needs rewriting, and it shouldn't be called "Dubner's conjecture". XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think, having looked at who cites Dubner and Zwillinger, that XOR'easter has it right. This isn't an acknowledged named conjecture in its own right. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 21 November 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) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puma sponsorships[edit]

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

Appears to be largely WP:OR, with only a couple of press releases and trivial news items supporting notability at large. In no way meets WP:NLIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are we as a non-profit doing this tracking of shoe/athletic wear sponsorships in this much detail to begin with? This isn't appropriately encyclopedic in the least and has major MOSFLAG issues (look at List of Nike sponsorships#Artists, which is so disconnected from so many policies that they're putting flag icons next to music artists). Leave this to whatever sneaker wiki tracks this stuff, it certainly doesn't fit our purposes at all (and any move to category classification isn't appropriate at all there either). Consider this an endorsement of any article in Category:Sports sponsorships to be taken to deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS covering this as a list, just press releases and the like addressing individual sponsorships, so fails NLIST. AryKun (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. This is an encyclopedia, not the Puma marketing department, there is nothing encyclopedic about this list. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject clearly violates WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NLIST. Time to put this one to rest. Let'srun (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 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) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhok Gujran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If this is a town (it is described in the article as both a town and a landfill), it should meet WP:GEOLAND, but I am taking to AfD as I couldn't confirm it. It is also all unreferenced and unencyclopaedic, so would need to be nuked either way. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT, if the subject meets GNG/GEOLAND at some point an article can be written, there is nothing salvageable here. // Timothy :: talk 15:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ezoza Sharipova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches in Russian and Cyrillic/Latin Uzbek turn up only passing mentions. not yet notable. Akakievich (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 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) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Cameron Highlands[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. One of the reference is dead but from the title is a self-description by the Archdiocese that it's in.

The lack of even "1/2 GNG" sources is reflected in it's lack of content. The only content is a sentence on where it's at, a sentence on it's founding, and a sentence that it was closed for covid and reopened. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Article doesn't make any claim of notability, and as the nom mentioned this reflects in the lack of content. BEFORE showed hardly anything at all other than travel sites, nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismelda Cruz[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned above. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:03, 27 November 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) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Dimitrijević[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject, a Serbian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. I found this, which is not independent of the subject. Note: not to be confused with the karateka/fitness instructor of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Serbia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaima Abbassi[edit]

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

The subject, a Tunisian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. JTtheOG (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tunisia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: [35][36][37][38] (already in article).--152.169.185.118 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't read Arabic - please summarise the sources for us. Giant Snowman 15:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - #1 is a five-question interview. #2 is transfer news. #3 is another interview (more like direct quotes from the subject). #4 is easily the best source, as it addresses her directly. However, much of it is just rephrasing what she had said. JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More work needs to be and it can be moved to the draft space. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Stats page	1. "Chaima Abbassi Stats". FBref. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
Match report	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Match Report of Jordan vs Tunisia - 2021-06-10 - FIFA Friendlies - Women". Global Sports Archive. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
List of players	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "المنتخب التونسي لكرة القدم النسائية : قائمة اللاعبات المدعوات لمواجهتي الاردن". arriadhia.net (in Arabic). 1 June 2021. Archived from the original on 22 December 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
Interview	4. ^ "لقاء حصري مع قائد المنتخب التونسي بكرة القدم شيماء العباسي".
Routine annoucement and promo	5. ^ "تونسية تدعم دفاع سيدات الشباب".
Interview	6. ^ "شيماء العباسي : الأجواء جيدة في معسكر المنتخب التونسي".
Interview	7. ^ "كرة القدم خشنة لكنها لا تخص الرجال فقط".
Stats page	8. ^ "Match Report of Jordan vs Tunisia - 2021-06-13 - FIFA Friendlies - Women". Global Sports Archive. Retrieved 4 August 2021.

Nothing in the article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 15:49, 27 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Medical Association[edit]

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

No independent RS on the page for many years, I can't find much to show taht subject meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Europe. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This talks about it [39] and many other hits in Gscholar, notably for setting treatment guidelines. This talks about the group in relation to a person named to the head of the organization [40]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b Lewcm Talk to me! 23:24, 25 November 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 Speedrunning#History. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games notable for speedrunning[edit]

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

List has no clear criteria as to what is "notable for speedrunning" or not, formerly having section that cited one single reliable source and overall being unmanageable. It has also been tagged for numerous issues, such as original research, since 2021. If a video game was truly "notable for speedrunning", I would argue it would warrant its own article similarly to Quake done Quick (which also has a rough article but is at least notable), but this list effectively serves as a WP:COATRACK. NegativeMP1 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm surprised to see this even be nominated for deletion. Clear keep, imo. Electricmaster (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Super Mario 64 speedrunning should be discussed in the Super Mario 64 article, and so on. No reason to discuss it together with DOOM and Super Metroid, for example. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too overbroad, there are countless video games notable for speedrunning. If a game has a particular speedrunning "scene", it should probably be contained in the game's article or have its own article if it's really that notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Video games that are notable on Wikipedia will be notable for speedrunning. Similarly, we have Games Done Quick for the most popular speedrunning games. If anything, this list should be of the most popular speedrunning video games. Conyo14 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen people speed run the Oregon Trail; the list seems moot. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as some of the content is salvageable. Agree that the article as written currently does not set up clear inclusion criteria and has some odd inclusions, but I think there's some workable material for a History of speedrunning article that would be spun-off of Speedrunning#History here. While after 2014 or so just everything was speedrun, talking about the early games that had notable speed competition early is probably more significant (Quake done Quick as already noted, Super Metroid, various racing games). Redirect would allow the material to be consulted and used in compliance with the GDFL. SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per SnowFire. DecafPotato (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect SnowFire makes a good case. Dream Focus 22:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per SnowFire, this is definitely too much a mess to fully keep but the content is salvageable to be able to be used in other articles Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not overcategorized (many examples exist), and the inclusion criteria is clear (equivalent to WP:GNG of the speedrunning scene in each respective game). So this meets WP:NLIST (Wikipedia Guideline) perfectly and I don't see a reason at all to redirect or delete it. Delete comments like "If a game has a particular speedrunning "scene", it should probably be contained in the game's article or have its own article if it's really that notable." do not reference guidelines or policy, and can really be said of all lists. बिनोद थारू (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, we have no idea what makes a game notable for speedrunning. Only Up! was once popular, and it was speedran a couple times. That could be "notable for speedrunning", but if only one reliable source noted this, then it wouldn't be worth adding in. Technically, every game can be notable for speedrunning, which could potentially violate the rule about indiscriminate information.
Delete: No definable criteria for inclusion here and appears to be a case of WP:OR. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 27 November 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 Grup Gündoğarken. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankara'dan Abim Geldi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grup Gündoğarken: No appearance of notability. tr:Ankara'dan Abim Geldi has other sources, but is also up for deletion with two votes in favor so far, so I imagine those are no good anyway. Band doesn't appear to be notable either and could easily also go, but redirecting there in the meantime is fine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Article makes no claim of notability, simply states, "is a Turkish popular song" followed by five paragraphs of bland WP:OR much of which is from tr.wp. BEFORE showed nothing that would make the song meet WP:N. Sources from tr.wp:

Comments	Source
Fails SIGCOV	1. ^ "POPULAR MUSIC SOUND PERFORMANCE" (PDF) . Ankara Music and Fine Arts University.
Dup of #1	2. ^ "POPULAR MUSIC SOUND PERFORMANCE" (PDF) . Ankara Music and Fine Arts University.
Album booklet, primary	3. ^ My Brother Came from Ankara (Album booklet). Group at Sunrise . Kervan Plakcılık . 1993. 8691575026780.
Album booklet, primary	4. ^ Mest of Gündoğarken (Album booklet). Group at Sunrise . Universal Music Production . 1998. 8691024008480.
About an album, no SIGCOV about the song	5. ^ Salik, Ruya. " How many times can the album ' İlhan Şeşen: My Gift' be listened to?" . Molatic . Nationality . Access date: 21 November 2023 .
Mention in album review	6. ^ Nakitoğlu, Emre (12 November 2018). "A living tribute to the doyen composer of love songs: İlhan Şeşen - My Gift…" . Bi'Kuble . Access date: 21 November 2023 .
Fails SIGCOV	7. ^ "Joint rally from Ekrem İmamoğlu, Mansur Yavaş and Meral Akşener" . Real Agenda

No objection to a consensus Redirect to Grup Gündoğarken. // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 27 November 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 Revolutionary Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists#Criticisms and divisions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Union of Anarchists[edit]

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

This article has existed in a pretty poor state since its creation by a single-purpose account back in 2012, not long after the group formed. A lot of the claims in this article, like it having chapters in almost a dozen countries, are dubious and unsourced. Its only coverage in independent sources has been about a 2012 demonstration in Volgograd, followed by some arrests in 2013. Nothing since then. Its website has been dead since 2013 and sources suggest it has been defunct since 2014. Given this appears to have been a very short-lived splinter group, with only one notable action, I propose this be redirected to Revolutionary Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists#Criticisms and divisions. Grnrchst (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom as a suitable alternative to deletion since the standalone topic lacks in-depth coverage. The ruwiki article was deleted in 2021. No content to merge. czar 04:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominee and others. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Japanese[edit]

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

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the 2 transalations on its own accord. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, Japan, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More info and citations added to establish notability. Kural translations are a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani. Article passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rasnaboy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations.

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 Is It Legal?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Legal? episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 (please see the discussion for the issues raised). Not much has improved since then, other than the addition of a table instead of a plain list. The article is still unsourced, so I'd say this fails WP:NLIST and should perhaps be merged to Is It Legal?. Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statement in the 2nd AFD outcome. Nom makes no assertion that any effort was made to source or otherwise improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to be honest, is it still worth a separate article? Even with television series that have around the same episodes as Is It Legal, the episodes are kept in the original article (examples: Barry, Ted Lasso, Russian Doll, Never Have I Ever). I'd say a split is only warranted if there are a lot of episodes or if the article is too long (examples: Boardwalk Empire, Succession, The Mindy Project). Spinixster (chat!) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you start a merge discussion first and fail to gain traction? Or Boldly merge it and were reverted? You've already garnered one "delete" vote from someone who apparently doesn't understand NTEMP and ATDs. As a discussion, sure, a merger proposal is appropriate. As a matter of policy, however, the lack of sourcing as a fixable problem is not a justification for deletion. The topic is the show itself, so primary or trivial sourcing (e.g. summary, TV Guides, etc.) for each episode which presumably exists somewhere would be sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Is It Legal?. No sourcing whatsoever, just an external link to the British Comedy Guide, which is a British version of IMDb. The larger issue is that the main article also has no sourcing, just external links to sites Wikipedia does not recognize as reliable sourcing. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the show doesnt have enough episodes to justify having this page.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant Would you like to consider an WP:ATD and merge the list to the original page instead? You seem to be hinting at that in your vote. Spinixster (chat!) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge Per Spinxster. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Is It Legal? per nom. Fails NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 27 November 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 Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Dodgers rivalry[edit]

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

This is another rivalry article between teams who are not historical rivals where the scope of article is centred on a WP:CFORK of Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. The content included in the article can be found in other articles. Nemov (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. Nemov (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anything here that can be placed into the "Impact and aftermath" section of the sing stealing article should be placed there. Otherwise, Dodgers fans are and will always be passed at the Astros for this one moment, but it doesn't mean the two are historical rivals. Let's see how things change if they meet again. Conyo14 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers after doing any pertinent WP:SUMMARY work there and at the team articles to merge key points into the appropriate sections. Some of the rationale in my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination) also applies here, though I'm not going to do the same tedious cite-by-cite analysis I did over there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, unlike the Cardinals–Royals rivalry, this one doesn't have enough mustard for even a paragraph mention. It's really just FANCRUFT and Dodgers fans being their salty selves. Conyo14 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Houston Astros sign stealing scandal Anything that is of note in this article, which in my opinion only includes incidents after the scandal, can be added to the “Impact and aftermath” section of that article. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers Subject does not meet the WP:GNG for a standalone article, but some of the sourced info can be added to the main MLB rivalry article.User:Let'srun 16:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No rivalry exists between these two teams. While they were both in NL playoff contention in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and have both been consistent World Series contenders over the past 5-10 years, teams being simultaneously competitive does not imply they are rivals. No sources are present to establish a rivalry between the team, and much of the alleged "hatred" amongst fans stems from the Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. I don't think there is enough substantiated content of a rivalry to even merit a mention on the rivalries page either, and for that reason I oppose a redirect. Frank Anchor 13:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge/Redirect target articles mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No rivalry exists between these two teams, so a redirect is not appropriate. Reading the article will show this as does the lack of sources. WP:NRIVALRY points to GNG and there are no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 06:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it should be Dodgers–Astros rivalry anyways ;) Conyo14 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Limited participation after last relist. Arguments for deleting, keeping and redirecting (Houston Astros sign stealing scandal/Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers) have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers as most of the details of this rivalry, maybe except for the aftermath of the sign stealing scandal, is not notable enough for a separate article. Polser11 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources indicate that the Astros and Dodgers have played each other, but do not establish a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavika Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and Perennial sources#The Times of India. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple television series and I don't see any issues with the sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass in WP:NACTOR .... but need some more RS Worldiswide (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific assessment of the available sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is clearly meets WP:NACTOR guidelines but I think more reliable source will be needed for Verification.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 12:58, 22 November 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) 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpplr[edit]

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

Coverage is just routine coverage about funding. WP:CORP does not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and California. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 20 November 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) 22:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn–Bamberg basketball brawl[edit]

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

This article was created by Onomatopoeia 3 days after the brawl in question. Even with an expansion earlier this year, it's still a barebones article with 0 citations and 2 dead links. I believe the info described in this article would be better covered in the articles of the two teams involved.100.7.34.111 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from their request at WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As always with anything foreign, the article should be searched in its native language. I was able to find four sources in German: 1, 2, 3 and 4. I also found another mention of it here 5. KatoKungLee (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, no indication this is anything other than a news item, not an encyclopedic topic with WP:LASTING impact. // Timothy :: talk 11:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear case of WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear to have sustained coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 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 Karl Wolf. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype (Karl Wolf album)[edit]

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

Non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was de-prodded by an editor who claimed there was enough coverage that notability could be presumed, but the article is entirely unsourced as of writing this, and most of the artist's albums I've spot-checked are just redirects, so I'm not entirely sure what they were alluding to by that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-notability claim. Article does not cite any sources, no attempt was made to properly develop the article. Mburrell (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No reason for deletion. Just keep the categories and add {{r from album}} ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would also be open to a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support Pdubs.94 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karl Wolf: Found no coverage. Seconding koavf on keeping the categories and adding {{r from album}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Darling (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl Wolf: User review which I cannot read on Allmusic, mostly interview quotes here, and passing mention on Billboard. Couldn't find charts, certification, or award/nom. dxneo (talk) 12:18, 26 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Moon[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be enough GNG level coverage for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex Sun Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it exists, the article has six references, four of them are YouTube, the other two are from World Chase Tag. I've had a look for other sources but I can't find anything that is even close to independent significant coverage. I don't think this article passes WP:GNG WP:NSPORT or WP:ORG. Knitsey (talk) 16:41, 26 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hights Corner, California[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is another of the many low-effort stubs created by the same user in 2009, based only on GNIS labels incorrectly describing this location as an "unincorporated community". No evidence found that this was ever a populated place, let alone a legally-recognized place, thus failing WP:GEOLAND. A newspaper search for "Hights Corner" turns up nothing from Kern County or neighboring Tulare County. The coordinates geolocate to the parking lot of a church, with some warehouses nearby. The only evidence I can find that there was ever anything here is the Rosedale, CA USGS topo quadrangle from 1954: [41], which shows a gravel pit and a cluster of small buildings, probably either the gravel operation or worker housing. Earlier and later quads show nothing at the site. This is a clear fail of notability because of the lack of evidence, other than this one map, that this was ever a populated place. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An old Kern County history says "the old Hight place" with no further context, and that's all that I've found. I've looked in the usual places, Arcadia histories, county histories, Lippincott's, and so forth. Nothing. So I can source nothing more than "Hight was a place in California.", which of course provides zero context in Wikipedia too. There is not enough context to even establish a subject. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I found many references to individuals named Hight when searching area newspapers, so it's likely the Hights were a prominent local family (I am not super-familiar with the area's history). A notable family and a notable place named after that family are two separate things, however. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, the person's surname wasn't even Hight. It was Hughes. ☺ I couldn't even make a convincing case from the source that "the old Hight place" is in Kern County, let alone is this purported place. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Google Earth shows the same 30-ish buildings from the 1954 topographic map are still there. See the NW corner of the highway intersection. Google Steetview confirms people live there. This location did not appear on topo maps before World War II. Here's the complete United States Geological Survey collection of maps for this location dating back to 1910:[42]. Perhaps 75-150 people live there now -- is this enough to make this place notable? Recent AfD precedents for small California towns vary -- that's why I contested the PROD in favor of an AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Earth is not research. What would make it notable would be an in-depth source for starters saying what it is. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. No meaningful coverage found in the Internet Archive, Newspapers.com, or Google. The Omni Gazetteer (1991) categorizes it as a "populated place" but there is literally nothing talking about it as such. The Seventh Standard Pentecostal Church of God which everyone sees on the map lists its own address as Shafter, CA – nothing referring to Hights Corner there. Newspapers.com finds an ad listing a tire shop called "Hight's Friendly Corner", but that's somewhere else completely (Claremont, CA). The closest we come is this United States Geologic Survey report (1966) mention: "An extensive gravel lentil, up to 150 feet thick and about 200 square miles in area, directly overlies the gravel and clay unit near Bakersfield and the fine sand to clay unit near Rosedale and Hights Corner." The Secretary of State's 2011 edition of the California Roster lists "Hights Corner, Kern" as an "unincorporated area" but it appears more recent editions (i.e. 2022) have done away with the "unincorporated area" index completely. (Can't help wondering how that 2011 list was compiled and whether someone decided to factcheck using Wikipedia.) Cielquiparle (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete The cluster of houses shows up in the early 1950s and pretty plainly represents some early subdivision. What I doubt is that it was ever or even is now called Hights Corner. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh this is amusing! You'll like this. I didn't try approaching it from the point of view of what people at the place call the place until you wrote that. The Pentecostal Church and the distribution and other businesses all think that they are at "7th Standard Road, Shafter, California" with not a mention of "Hight". But officially, according to some very dull business licences in the Federal Register, they are at the stop on the Santa Fe that is called … wait for it! … Crome, California (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - And once one knows this, maps in the 1980 California Rail Plan turn up, as does a California High Speed Rail Authority report that discusses displacing the Pentecostal Church at Crome. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G I had actually thought of mentioning Crome because Google Maps offers it up as an overlay for that area. There was a "prominent" family with the surname Crome in Bakersfield. But yes, nothing suggesting that Crome, California should be restored. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the Crome deletion but yes, the topos show it is clearly a rail spot and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- And no, I don't support a redirect. There's no credible evidence that I can find that this stop on the Santa Fe has ever been called "Hight". Uncle G (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a lot of X Corner placenames in Kern Co. In a huge and thinly populated county like Kern I suspect these locations supported one store (or gas station, etc) and locals called them X's Corner after their friend who ran the place and used the point as a landmark. Or possibly these were the corners of someone's grazing land. But no evidence that this corner reaches the level of encyclopedic notability. jengod (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion by Jimfbleak‎

Bakhit Khamis[edit]

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

Should be moved to draft space. yvanyblog^(talk) 12:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. yvanyblog^(talk) 12:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yvanyblog, WP:FIXIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why has this been pinged to the cricket project? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:16, 23 November 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 The Sarah Jane Adventures. ✗plicit 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane's Alien Files[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage online except primary sources and a Fandom article. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures. It was essentially a tie-in with the series. While there is probably not enough notability/coverage for a separate article, it is worth covering it in the series' article and also it is a plausible search term. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced content with The Sarah Jane Adventures. Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 11:47, 27 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden City F.C.[edit]

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

Fails general WP:GNG guide. No significant coverage. Amateur team that are not part of the Chinese football pyramid & do not play in Chinese domestic cups. Article is primarily written in a non-encyclopaedic manner, and is mostly outdated.

Previous PROD was removed, so listing for discussion. Curt ^内蒙 11:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinda agree with the nomination, the article does have a WP:PROMOTIONAL feel about it. Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the insufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I found these sources:
1. Green, Denis (2014-06-09). "Join the Club". Beijing Review. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "As a keen sportsman, I decided to join a popular expat football team called Forbidden City F.C.—a decision I have not regretted one bit. From the first day I arrived, everyone was welcoming and made me feel right at home. The club has more than 30 players made up of all different nationalities and ages. There is a strong team ethic and a real sense of camaraderie. For me, this was the perfect way to meet a new group of friends, Chinese and foreign. Everyone in the squad was new at one stage, so they are all well aware of what it's like to be the fresh face joining a long-established community. The club trains weekly on Wednesday evenings and usually has a game at the weekend. Along with the sporting aspect, the club also fosters many social events throughout the season—including an annual trip to Bangkok for an international tournament. Spread throughout the two leagues are 24 teams, with each team having a sponsor who provides their uniform, resources and money for travel: these sponsors are usually a local restaurant, bar or shop within the city the team is from."
2. Vinci, Vincent R. (2023-03-06). "Get Sporty in Spring: Football Teams You Can Join in Beijing". The Beijinger. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "Forbidden City FC is one of Beijing’s most decorated and largest expat footballing communities. The club actually has two teams under one club: Forbidden City and Summer Palace. Both teams train and socialize together, but Forbidden City play in the top division, whereas Summer Palace play in the second division. This allows the club to cater to a range of player abilities and build a diverse community of footballers. When they’re not competing or training at Side Park in Lido, the “Citizens” are also known for their off pitch parties; footy golf challenges and Beijing backstreet escapades. When not in lockdown FCFC regularly participates in tournaments across Asia thanks to the team’s mixed bag of long time Beijingers, recent settlers and their out of country devotees – which will hopefully kick off again soon now that lockdowns are a thing of the past. Join the “City” family for a laugh and football fun."
3. Huang, Jianxiang 黄健翔 (2009-09-25). "20年目睹中国足球怪现状：黄健翔解说门中国式幽默" [Witnessing the strange current situation of Chinese football in 20 years: Huang Jianxiang explains Chinese humor]. 东方体育日报 [Oriental Sports Daily] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "既然是德国世界杯，我邀请在我新效力的紫禁城足球队踢中场的德国人陈跃加入我的媒体团队，负责协调团队跟足球的关系。"
  From Google Translate: "Since it is the World Cup in Germany, I invited Chen Yue, a German who plays midfielder for my new Forbidden City football team, to join my media team and be responsible for coordinating the relationship between the team and football."
The first source provides two paragraphs of coverage (but is not independent), the second source provides two paragraphs of coverage, and the third source is a passing mention. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Forbidden City F.C. (simplified Chinese: 紫禁城足球俱乐部; traditional Chinese: 紫禁城足球俱樂部) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 22 November 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 Sons of Alpha Centauri. The exact section can be decided editorially. ✗plicit 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Alpha Centauri (demo album)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable album. All sources either are bare mentions, crowdsourced, or affiliated. Paid creator. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sons of Alpha Centauri: Found no additional coverage. Two of the four sources are primaries from the band's own website, one is from Discogs, and the last is a single sentence in their AllMusic bio. I know nothing about any PAID/COI violations. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sons of Alpha Centauri#2001–2007: Formation and Sons of Alpha Centauri per above, citations support the existence, but not the details, I don't think there is anything properly sourced for a merge that isn't in the target already. // Timothy :: talk 11:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sønderholm[edit]

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

I may be misjudging this as I am not familiar with Danish sources, but I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It obviously needs other work - it's very promotional - but it seems more than this. It ahs been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not seem to be much of substanceonline, all I could see were references to films he has appeared in. Are these sufficient? He is described as 'starring which suggests peolple might have heard of him.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is to a movie review without SIGCOV about the subject, ELs are two primary sources and a database. BEFORE found nothing that meets BLPs requirement for strong sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 27 November 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senki Senki Momotama[edit]

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

It is unclear how this meets WP:N. I may be missing something as I don't read Japanese, so taking to AfD for discussion. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article does not mention this, but it was published in English by Tokyopop under the title Momo Tama and based on that release, I found four reviews from sources listed at WP:ANIME/RS: Active Anime, Pop Culture Shock, The Fandom Post, Sequential Tart. Link20XX (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Link20XX:. Just for the record though, I tried searching Japanese results and came up empty in terms of notability (COMIC Natalie just had release info). This looks to be notable from the English side as there are reviews for the series and it was brought over to be serialized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found; also appear to be some sources in Japanese but I did not do anything in-depth to verify notability from those since I believe it is already established by Link20XX. DCsansei (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Star Trek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I could not find any discussions of the Dax symbiont that were not actually discussions of either Jadzia or Ezri. All other discussions are in unreliable sources. The current article is largely unsourced, with the exception of two transcripts and two summaries from the official Star Trek website. Since there are two notable Daxes, it would be a good idea to turn this page into a redirect to the preexisting character list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a more specific list: List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Redirect, the sources do not support this as a standalone main space page, but do support a redirect. @Clarityfiend's suggestion makes sense to me without being a subject matter expert on star trek myself (though i did watch the original series, that doesn't help here). Iljhgtn (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters - Jadzia and Ezri both have their own article, and they are the only hosts of the Dax symbiont that have any kind of argument for notability. This is just a character article for a bunch of minor characters that have no reliable sources, independently or as a group, that would pass the WP:GNG. The DS9 character list already briefly describes what the Dax symbiont is and provides links to Jadzia and Ezri's articles, making a redirect there the best option. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect generally means that all of the information in this article will disappear. Whilst I accept the reasons given for this not being a standalone article, I think that a way should be found to keep the main points of this article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per others. It is all plot, there is nothing to merge, really. Star Trek Wiki is more of the place for this manner of content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So to be clear, given that the decision will be to redirect, am I right in saying that the information contained in this article will disappear? Rillington (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington It may be preserved in article's history, but let's face it - what we have here is 99% plot summary, and this is not really encyclopedic content. Wikipedia =/= Fandom (Memory Alpha...). WP:ALLPLOT, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate. Niche ST characer, most coverage is of the related humanoids. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 22 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final Cut Server[edit]

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

I could not find any relevant non-primary sources on this topic that are not from Macworld, and if I used the Macworld sources, the page will rely entirely on a single source. Equal width (C) 10:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. From what I can tell, the subject here ~~could very well~~ meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Certainly the nominator's suggestion, that the "only relevant non-primary sources are from Macworld", doesn't hold water. As I was very quickly and easily able to find and add multiple sources, including from Engadget, Computerworld and AppleInsider. If this article is not retained as a standalone title, and is considered (for example) for merge with Final Cut Studio or similar, it should not be for the suggested "no secondary refs other than MacWorld" reasons - as that rationale doesn't stack up. Guliolopez (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so why didn’t you vote Keep with this text? Equal width (C) 04:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because (1) AFD is expressly not a "vote" as you imply. It is a discussion. (2) I have contributed my opinion to that discussion (that the subject could well be notable). And (3) I do not like to make snap contributions without considering the sources and the policies (which I have/hadn't fully done when I added my thoughts above - to the extent that I wasn't yet ready to firmly advocate for a "keep". I may yet. But that's not up to you). Please try not to confuse Wikipedia with a battleground or debate club. With "opposing" sides. Decision making (including in AfD discussions) is based on discussion and consensus building. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on additional sourcing/input from several editors (updated since my note above), it is clear(er) to me that this title should be kept as a standalone article. Rather than, say, merged to one of the related Final Cut Studio articles. Certainly I do not see or support a case for outright deletion (by any stretch of the imagination, sources or related policies). I have therefore updated my earlier note to clarify my recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another frivolous AfD from this new user. Even if that lazy first glance was correct, deletion is obviously not a valid course of action instead of redirect to Final Cut Pro. However, Guliolopez's easily found and widespread sourcing hasn't even yet reached back to the product's original form prior to Apple. — Smuckola (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An Oppose vote in an AfD? That's invalid! Please change your vote to Keep or Delete. Also stop calling me new without thinking about whether I consider myself new or not. Equal width (C) 06:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. Plenty of significant coverage to be found in book and magazine sources, as well as the web sources found and cited recently. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:59, 22 November 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 1989 Australian Capital Territory general election. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Party! Party! Party![edit]

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

Not to be the party pooper, but despite the humour, this clearly fails WP:N. I could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources (including by searching Google and trove), and the one substantive assertion in the article (its creators did not believe in self-government) is unsourced and I was unable to verify it. Portwalrus (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Portwalrus (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1989 Australian Capital Territory general election. Discussed 30 years after the event: "Provocateur Emile Brunoro registered six parties to contest the poll, including the Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party, which promised to ban gas-ripened "fake" tomatoes from the ACT. His other parties included Party! Party! Party! and Surprise Party." (Canberra Times, 6 March 2019) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds quite sensible to me - and information could be added to the Political parties and election process citing this source. Portwalrus (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all citations currently used in the article are primary references. Per the nomination it lacks Sigcov in secondary sources and is therefore not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Goldsztajn|, because might as well. Cabrils (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, not notable beyond this single election. ITBF (talk) 12:47, 26 November 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 Indonesia national cricket team#Grounds. ✗plicit 14:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udayana Cricket Ground[edit]

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

Cricket ground that has hosted a small number of low profile men's and women's T20 international matches. Propose restoring the redirect to Indonesia national cricket team#Grounds, as for other similar venues. Bs1jac (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Indonesia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Per nom. There's not enough coverage for a standalone article currently, so the redirect was the best solution. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the redirect seems the best option until someone can show there's a substantial discussion about the ground somewhere Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect as per nom and other comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. Tthe nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Safari[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is notable. Possible redirect to List of Windows 3.x games, where it is listed. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years and it doesn't appear to be neglect. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Education, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got WP:OFFLINE reviews in Wired Magazine, CD-ROMs Rated, CD-ROM Today, and The Multimedia Home Companion amongst others. It seems the WP:BEFORE was largely just for online sources, which indeed don't exist for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above. Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 24 November 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. There seems to be consensus that the page in its current state is not useful as an encyclopedic article, especially considering the ill-defined scope and noting that there are other articles which cover similar topics. Would be open to restore to draft if someone has clear intention/plans to work on it, otherwise that is simply delaying deletion with no real purpose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britons in Egypt[edit]

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

A single ref on the page for many years - nothing much to suggest that meets the criteria of inclusion. Of course there has been a long story of association between Egypt and Britons, but there are other pages which cover that. JMWt (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion, not a useful article, it essentially contains no information. BHC (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Egypt, and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deletion, it has no useful content as already stated.
Ldm1954 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have articles with one sentence so I'm not sure about the judgment that the article content here is not "useful". Usefulness is not a criteria typically used in deletion discussion. Lots of notable subjects may not be useful. How about evauating sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly expandable from the Whidden 2010 source at Egypt–United Kingdom relations#Further reading. But I have a life. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title could cover anything from tourists to invaders and the minimal content does little to elucidate the subject. Taken broadly the subject is just an unnecessary fork of UK-Egyptian relations. Taken narrowly, i.e. British expatriates living in Egypt, it is niche enough to need citations to reliable sources to establish notability. Either way, delete what we have here and start again from scratch if desired (probably at a different, clearer title). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the Draft Space. More work needs to be done for the topic is notable! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 17:27, 24 November 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 Dominion War. Clear consensus not to retain the article below, and of the various merge proposals, this clearly had the most support. Daniel (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (Star Trek)[edit]

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

Plot summary + history of creation, the latter sourced to DVD commentary. No reception, analysis, etc. BEFORE shows many passing mentions in sources but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. What little serious coverage I see is about the Dominion War, a related but different topic (story arc/fictional event), and that article is better (it even has a reception section). I suggest, per WP:ATD, to redirect this entry there, unless someone can find reliable, non-trivial sources discussing the Dominion itself as an entity (I failed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Politics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident this will meet GNG, but given that the vast bulk of the subject is directly related to the Dominion War article subject, I think a merge by WP:NOPAGE is probably best. I think a few paragraphs in a new section titled § The Dominion might suffice. Probably after § Development so as not to need to repeat too much from that section. —siro χ o 06:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite and expand as needed. As a long time Star Trek fan, I can say that the Dominion and the Dominion War was a major storyline in multiple series -- Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, Picard, Star Trek:Lower Decks, etc., and assorted noncanon tie-in novels. It meets general notability guidelines and there are sources, which I do not have time to hunt down. However, this is not the place for any cleanup that needs to be done and this is not an article that should have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is you're a fan and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Mika1h (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen mainstream news coverage explaining what the Dominion was in reviews of the recent TV show Picard. I’m not inclined to spend the time required to find and cite them all.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few sources and added them to the article's talk page under a {{refideas}}. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there's enough that's not related to Dominion War to have an article that isn't primarily overlap/summary? —siro χ o 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This. Plus some of those "reference ideas" are unreliable or obvious plot sumamries - "The Birth of the Dominion and Beyond – via Star Trek: Deep Space Nine season 3 DVD special features" or episode guides/reviews. And Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion is "A lavishly illustrated episode-by-episode guide to the popular series offers fans plot summaries, complete credits and casting anecdotes"... sorry, no, this stuff might be good for Fandom but not Wikipedia. These days we have some standards such as WP:GNG... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War. This is pure Memory Alpha content, and is too much of a plot summary to justify a separate page. I have no prejudice towards recreation if WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be passed by demonstrating the importance of the subject. I also have no objection to draftification until it can be improved further. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge with Dominion War. Somewhere between those two related topics there might be an article that meets WP:SIGCOV. And it can be re-evaluated after the information has been re-organized. As is, this article doesn't have enough coverage to justify a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Every editor participating in this discussion has a different idea of what should happen with this article so at least one relisting is an inevitability. And we have different Redirect target articles proposed so that needs sorting out. As for a "reverse merge", if there is a consensus for that, it will have to be handled by another closer as that is not one of the options that XFDcloser allows us to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dominion War. One article is sufficient at this time, and the other article is more developed. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is important as is part of Deep Space Nine's plot. As well, the Dominion is a featured antagonist faction almost all the series. Capaitan Kirter7007 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a very strong argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dominion was a major race in Deep Space Nine, featuring from season two and becoming prominent in later seasons and it is therefore appropriate to have its own article. Rillington (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree Alivaditis (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC) — Alivaditis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War: Honestly, all of the discussions of the Dominion revolve around the storyline that features them. Meanwhile, the article itself has no independent sourcing whatsoever. There is nothing worth preserving here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dominion War. Unlike other major Star Trek races (Klingons, Romulans, even the Gorn and the Borg), the Dominion serves no other narrative purpose in the series to date than to be at war with the Federation. BD2412 T 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dominion War. Unlike other important Star Trek races they are only really featured in one property, DS9, and in one relationship to the Federation, war. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer Dominion War to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War as the merge target because it is longer and it potentially has room for some of this sourced content. The main DS9 page is well served by the short section currently there, but as User:Piotrus says above there are certainly enough sources to justify a spin out on the story arc, even if not the antagonists separately. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus or even an agreement on a Merge/Redirect target article if this article isn't Kept. The only consensus I do see is that this page should exist in some form and not be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! User talk:Liz} 07:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz SOFTDELETION with redirecting should solve most issues, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Liz rightly notes, there seems to be a divide in the opinion as to whether to merge this article about a very significant protagonist in DS9 into a wider article about a story arc, and this could see the information contained about such a notable Star Trek species lost to Wikipedia. This is why I voted to keep this article.Rillington (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Losing information is not an issue here. If the article doesn't pass WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline, it should not exist. Also, Memory Alpha exists. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel that the article easily passes any notability threshold due to this species being probably the most prominent species regarding story arcs during the second half of DS9. And thank you for mentioning Memory Alpha - I hadn't previously heard of that site. Rillington (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the most prominent Star Trek civilizations -- if we have articles on Ferengi and Borg, then we should have one on the Dominion. AFD should not be used for cleanup. —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Rillington (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:ITSIMPORTANT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still Keep~~ My vote will be not in vain, I'll do my best for the article to be keep. Resitance is not futile yet!Capaitan Kirter7007 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck double-!vote. Daniel (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Looks as too specific fiction concept for separate article on Wikipedia and has just two references. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(?) Rather than delete, merge article into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as a section olef641 (talk)
Merge with Dominion War: or the other way around, as long as attributions are kept via WP:HISTMERGE. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 28 November 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 WVBR-FM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Media Guild, Inc.[edit]

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

Non notable student-run 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, primary sourced promo. Fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WVBR-FM: any notability that could be theoretically associated with this company is probably associated with its radio station, and not any subsequent additional ventures. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I'm an alumnus of this group, but I disagree with this point. Electric Buffalo Records (the student run record label under CMG) is building a track record of signing artists with a real following, best exemplified by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Russell_(musician), who got his start with Electric Buffalo Records (cited here: https://cornellsun.com/2017/05/07/the-unconventional-and-honest-music-of-paul-russell/ ). I believe this, plus @NiftyyyNofteeeee's points below, contribute to the CMG's notability enough to merit its own page. 2.31.28.5 (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested target, as a WP:ATD. No independent notability for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because CMG is not just WVBR, it is a company containing also another radio station and record label. The company has a lot of historical relevance at Cornell and in Ithaca, NY Dalvago (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep: The page may be kept, per significant and historically rich component of student life at Cornell University. Additionally, the CMG's legacy, dating back to 1935, is kind of impressive. References to newspapers or books from that era could help and contribute to its notability, which I believe can be verified. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 🥺🥺 Dannycool3000 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WVBR-FM, its sole property. Fails WP:NCORP. It sort of acts as an extension of the station. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesude Hülya Şanes Doğru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Turkey. Kadı Message 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Muñiz[edit]

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

The subject, a Dominican Republic women's football and futsal player, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 November 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.

. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Star Fox characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falco Lombardi[edit]

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

Many characters who have appeared in Smash have been going through the AfD ringer recently, and while I feel most have some degree of notability, Falco's article has always bugged me, as no source in his article really focuses on him. There's a few Smash sources, but most of it is just oddly specific listicles. I'd be fine with using listicles if there were whole articles dedicated to or using Falco as a major bulk of the article, but the article is quite literally just built on them. A brief search doesn't yield up anything else either: little to no hits in Scholar or Books, and any other sources don't yield much that isn't of the same caliber of what's in the article. Unless other sources can be found that I missed, I feel an ATD merge to the Star Fox character list would be for the best. Pokelego999 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Pokelego999 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Fox characters per nom. Will admit that yeah this flew under the radar for me too but looking at it I do agree completely, there's no meat here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom, the sources are very lacking. Definitely worth a list mention, but there is no need for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Star Fox characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism (2nd nomination)

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

Article lacks reliable sources that verify this NGO is notable Missjaenna (talk) 14:43, 6 November 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 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previously deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Would reconsider if someone found sources in Persian. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, fails WP:ORG. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 05:46, 20 November 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. Not creating a redirect at this time, but no objection should someone else choose to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheed Al-Hardan[edit]

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

I’m the living person and this page concerns me. I would like it immediately deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoratwiki2024! (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 November 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 November 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Lebanon, Palestine, Ireland, England, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think her book Palestinians in Syria: Nakba Memories of Shattered Communities may be notable, at least, but we should take seriously the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Is it possible that we can get the authenticity of this request verified through a contact by the subject to WP:VRT? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, the subject has confirmed her wish for the article to be removed - ticket:2023112010001067. Cabayi (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Delete. I think this case is borderline-enough that we can respect the subject's wishes. We don't need to speculate about reasons; that is not necessary for this sort of request. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with recommendation to use the book-related material in an article on the book. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to disregard WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE here, whether in terms of notability or sourcing. But the book is unquestionably notable and has enough reviews to support a reasonably substantive article. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper subject's verified request; in future redirect it to the article on the book, when written, per the above post. PamD 15:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to an article about the book Palestinians in Syria: Nakba Memories of Shattered Communities which has multiple reviews and won an award (three reviews in JSTOR) and therefore passes WP:NBOOK. --hroest 15:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote almost all of this article. Personally, I do not believe that Dr. Al-Hardan, in the middle of the night, created a Wikipedia user account with the name "Editoratwiki2024!" (what?) and started edit warring on her Wikipedia biography. Not sure how well VRT verifies these requests but I'm not buying it.

Insofar as WP:N is concerned, I agree with the other editors above that it's the book that's notable more-so than its author. Redirect/rename/rescope to the book article, if someone wants to write it (not me). Levivich (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect). I find BLPREQUESTDELETE cases to be minefields, although Cabayi's information is more credible than what we usually get. However, this is an unambiguous fail of WP:PROF (too early in career), so I would easily say delete if it had been nominated on that basis. (Not sure if it's a fail of WP:AUTHOR, but redirecting is an easy solution to that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is only an easy solution if there's a target to which to redirect: at present the book redirects to the author. PamD 21:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Let's take "easy" to ±mean "takes care of the problem" in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, create one for Palestinians in Syria: Nakba Memories of Shattered Communities using the book reviews already found, and redirect the author's name to there. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the subject is borderline notable and the article can be deleted as requested.Groceryheist (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. nableezy - 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 24 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hebditch[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer and ice hockey player through failing WP:GNG criteria. A youth career in ice hockey and appearances for Saint Pierre and Miquelon is not much to go off either (just saying). Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete I am unsure, of the sources present in the article, none of them qualify for WP:GNG, I tried to look for secondary sources online, however the name Simon Hebditch, there are a number of different people. But what I found on him was his name in those football databases, some hockey databases and a few one liners. Nothing suggestive of basic GNG, unless someone proves me wrong and finds good sources. It's a delete from me. Govvy (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G&Y[edit]

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

can't find any evidence this existed, I'm sure it did, but it is not-notable, was previously prodded in 2016 Echetus Xe 14:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources provided are all non-independent – clearly this did exist (see archived copy of ref 1 and first external link), but I can't find anything at all online to support a notability claim. I can't see a good redirect based on the article contents either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if someone was to find print coverage somewhere, but with what's available to me I can't find anything. Tollens (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Business, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've added a bit to the article, not enough to make it across the line. May have another go later but if other editors want to build on this it's a start. Note that Chinese wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article. Oblivy (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your excellent work improving the article, Oblivy (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding anything in English that would come close to WPORG needs and it may just be that there isn't enough about them, however flagging for @Cunard: as if anyone can find Chinese-language sourcing, they can. Star Mississippi 13:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Great to see you, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs), and thank you for the ping! Cunard (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of sources:
  1. "Arts of Asia article". Arts of Asia. Vol. 37. 2007. p. 8. Retrieved 2023-11-17 – via Google Books.
    The article notes: "香港藝術品商會慶祝中華人民共和國成立 57 周年聯警宴會 The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association Limited annual dinner to celebrate China's National day (1st October ). ... When the Association was founded on November 26th, 1968, it had 182 members and its membership has now expanded to over 300. For many years it has made great efforts to strengthen the ties amongst its members, and raising the standards of local dealers in Chinese arts and antiquities. Through the issuance of Certificates of Antiquity, the Association has increased the confidence of local collectors and heightened the interest of overseas buyers of antiques and works of art, thereby helping to establish Hong Kong as the ... Association members and guests stand while China's anthem is played during the National Day banquet dinner at the Metropolitan Restaurant centre of Oriental art and culture.
  2. Long, Pat (2022-01-07). "趣淘宝(156)：从同治粉彩"五子夺魁"双囍连盖粉盒看古董收藏" [Taobao (156): Look at the antique collection from the Tongzhi pastel "Five Sons Win the First Prize" double-necked powder box with lid]. Chinese Canadian Voice (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "When the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association was established in 1968, it decided to set up an Antiques Appraisal Committee (Authentication Committee). The Appraisal Committee is composed of industry elites and recruits experts and scholars as consultants. In the 1970s, then-US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China opened a new chapter in the friendly exchanges between China and the United States. ... To this day, the appraisal certificate from the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association is still an important document that can be used as evidence in court. The scope of appraisal includes ceramics, jade, bronze, bamboo, calligraphy and painting, lacquerware, materials, embroidery, stone carvings, snuff bottles, miscellaneous items, etc. . Over the past half century, the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association has appraised more than one million pieces of art. The credibility of the antique appraisal certificates issued by the Appraisal Committee is well-known at home and abroad. It is an antique certification certificate recognized by many countries’ customs, ministries of commerce, and judicial agencies. Extremely professional and authoritative."
  3. "【業界精英】翟健民膺香港藝術品商會理事長" [[Industry Elite] William Chak was elected chairman of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-02-07. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Art Merchants Association was established in 1968 and has become a non-profit organisation with hundreds of members. It has always been aimed at serving the society, promoting the development of the handicraft industry, and promoting Chinese culture, and serves its members and all walks of life. Members include businesses, factories, associations, auction companies and cultural relic enthusiasts operating or related to the antiques and crafts industry, including many industry elites and famous stores. The AB Certificate (Antique Appraisal Certificate) issued by the Merchants Association enables fellow goods exported to Europe, America, Japan and other places to enjoy tax-free discounts. Traders in the industry have also been able to contact their counterparts in the Mainland through merchants associations to facilitate the purchase of goods."
  4. Mak, Mak 麥默 (2018-09-26). Lo, Jing-wan 羅縈韻 (ed.). "【商會大慶】藝術品商會五十周年服務香港業界半世紀" [[Merchants Association Big Celebration] The 50th Anniversary of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association. It has served the Hong Kong industry for half a century]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association was established in 1968. Over the past 50 years, under the leadership of successive heads of the Merchants Association and a group of directors and supervisors, the Merchants Association has always adhered to patriotism and Hong Kong, and has made positive contributions to the country's opening up to the outside world and the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong ... The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association is a non-profit social organisation whose members come from businesses, factories, societies, auction companies and antique enthusiasts that operate or are related to the antiques and crafts industry. The Merchants Association is a non-profit association with members from relevant industries. Fifty years ago, the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association was founded by Tan Pin, Cai Yubai, and Luo Shaoping; the founding members were ... The successive presidents ..."
  5. Fok, Yeung-yeung 霍揚揚 (2020). 獅子山上的新月: 香港華人穆斯林社群的源流與傳承 [The Lion Rock's Crescent: The Emergency of the Chinese Muslim community in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Taipei: Showwe Information 秀威資訊科技. p. 143. ISBN 978-986-326-843-7. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The book notes: "對於聚居在尖沙嘴的北方穆斯林而言,九龍清真寺是一個聯繫社群生活的空間。由於大部分聚居當地的穆斯林都是從事古玩玉石生意的商人,他們為了進一步凝聚行業的力量,故在1968年時成立了「香港藝術品商會」。該會由穆斯林商人譚品三、蔡毓伯及羅少平三人發起,並由金寶銳任第一屆理事長。他自1968 年起擔任該會的理事長直至1983年。該會以「服務社會,推動古玩工藝品行業發展,弘揚中華文化。」為宗旨”。該會與內地維持緊密和良好的關係,在創會後便經常籌組赴內地的貿易交流團及到廣州參與中國進出口商品交易會。"
    From Google Translate: "For northern Muslims living in Tsim Sha Tsui, the Kowloon Mosque is a space that connects community life. Since most of the Muslims living in the local area are merchants engaged in the antiques and jade business, in order to further unite the strength of the industry, they established the "Hong Kong Art Merchants Association" in 1968. The association was initiated by Muslim businessmen Tan Pinsan, Cai Yubo and Luo Shaoping, with Jin Baorui as the first chairman. He served as the association's president from 1968 until 1983. The association's purpose is to "serve the society, promote the development of the antiques and handicrafts industry, and promote Chinese culture." The association maintains a close and good relationship with the mainland. After its establishment, it often organizes trade exchange groups to the mainland and to Guangzhou. Participate in the China Import and Export Fair."
2. Additional sources, including passing mentions and coverage of the association's events:
  1. Bielfeldt, Kathrin; Wong, Raymond (2016). 111 Places in Hong Kong that you shouldn't miss: Reiseführer. Cologne: Emons Verlag [de]. ISBN 978-3-96041-172-7. Retrieved 2023-11-17 – via Google Books.
    The book provides a passing mention. The book notes: "Arch Angel's manager director is a member of the Antique Board of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association, which assesses antiques and issues a certificate of authenticity."
  2. "香港藝術品商會舉辦癸卯年春節聯歡宴會暨第25屆理監事就職典禮" [The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association held the Guimao Spring Festival Gala Banquet and the 25th Inauguration Ceremony of Directors and Supervisors]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2023-03-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article discusses the attendees and events of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's Spring Festival Gala Banquet.
  3. "香港藝術品商會國慶聯歡喜氣洋溢" [Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's National Day celebration is filled with joy]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2023-10-11. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article discusses the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's banquet to celebrate the 74th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.
  4. Tang, Tsun-cheung 鄧傳鏘; Yuen, Lok-man 袁樂雯 (2018-04-05). "【信報月刊】吳繼遠：名家多膺品便宜莫貪" [[Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly] Kai-yuen Ng: Famous artists have many pieces that have been faked. Don't cut corners.]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "In addition to being an old expert in antiques and art trading, Kai-yuen Ng is also a well-known appraisal expert in the industry. He is currently the vice president of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association and the deputy director of the Antiques Appraisal Committee, helping the merchants association in appraising artworks."
  5. Nguyet, Tuyet (January–February 2007). "Editorial" (PDF). Arts of Asia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-01-24. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article mentions the association in a caption. The caption notes: "The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association Limited annual dinner to celebrate China’s National day (1st October). Chairman Chong Chin Sheng Henry in the centre leads the official toast. The Association’s senior members are Vice Chairmen Wang Chung Chiu James, Chak Kin Man, K.Y. Ng, Lau Wai Nin; Chairmen of the Supervisory Committee Liang Chung Kong, Lo Kwok Kwan, Lan Sin Yan; Vice Chairmen of Boards of Life Directors Chan Hok Chung, Chen Peng Hsiang; and Executive Committee members Lam Shing Chau, Sien Shu Hung, Lam Chun Wing, Fung Ying Chu, Chan Kin Chung and Yung Wai Kwan"
  6. Wong, Yuet-san 王玥晨 (2023-05-23). "第13屆香港國際古玩展細賞中外藝術瑰寶現場古玩鑑定茶器講座" [The 13th Hong Kong International Antiques Fair Appreciating Chinese and Foreign Art Treasures On-site Antique Appraisal Tea Ware Lecture] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Do you have a family heirloom or personal collection at home and want to identify its authenticity? You may wish to bring your antiques to the venue on May 27. At that time, a domestic expert team and the appraisal committee of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association will provide you with professional appraisal services. This is a rare opportunity. The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association will provide professional appraisal services on the 27th. Interested friends can bring antiques for appraisal."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association (traditional Chinese: 香港藝術品商會有限公司; simplified Chinese: 香港艺术品商会有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we see a further assessment on recently found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two of the sources above to the article. These are the Lion Rock's Crescent article which explains the founding, and the Chinese Canadian Voice article. Both have significant coverage of the organization. The Wen Wei Po article are lengthy but it seems like they were written based on information from the company. Arts of Asia is also substantial but very press-release like. The others are, as @Cunard says, passing mentions. Oblivy (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing Cunard identified. As they noted, not all is in depth, but of what is, it's sufficient for WP:ORG. (And Cunard, thank you as always!) Star Mississippi 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metalbilly[edit]

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

doesnt exist. also none of the sources present in the article uses the term FMSky (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 04:14, 20 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Paynter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, although a Pan American Games gold medalist, no significant coverage exists. The three references on the page are route coverage and not exclusively about the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Located significant coverage from The Day – there's also a runner by the same name that's got some coverage, e.g. Winston-Salem Journal and [43], not sure if its the same person. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article from The Day is regarding the same rower. The article from the Winston-Salem Journal is about a different person. Ehatchman (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with the Day article mentioned above, the sources in the article and her Princeton profile I think it's just about enough to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the athletes bio from the USRowing (NGB): https://usrowing.org/sports/pan-american-games-team/roster/hannah-paynter/799 67.248.172.141 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the link to coverage from USRowing https://usrowing.org/sports/2023/10/4/2023%20pan%20american%20games%20coverage%20page.aspx 67.248.172.141 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basil (Bodnarchuk)[edit]

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

~~Article fails WP:GNG, sites one source which is not only not independent, but also not accessible anymore.. AriTheHorse 04:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please, remove your nomination. You are wrong stating that the article is based on a single source. There are numerous sources and it is also based on the article from an encyclopedia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately, I may not remove the nomination based on Wikipedia's policies, but any admin can close the discussion and decide not to delete the article. AriTheHorse 04:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to point out that you added sources after my nomination. You're right—now that you've added the sources in Ukrainian, it probably (though I'm still not sure, as I cannot read them) fulfills the notability guidelines. AriTheHorse 04:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Poland, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is trivial to find sources supporting notability online. Thank you @Aleksandr Grigoryev for improving this article. Also of possible interest (but unavailable in my local libraries) are the following:

Боднарчук, Б. ВАСИЛІЙ (Боднарчук Іван Миколайович) [Текст] / Б. Боднарчук. // Тернопільський енциклопедичний словник : у 4 т. / редкол.: Г. Яворський та ін. — Тернопіль, 2004. — Т. 1 : А — Й. — С. 226-227.

Заплетнюк, Є. Пам’ятаймо наставників наших [Текст] : [вечір пам’яті митрополита Василія (Боднарчука) в обл. філармонії] / Є. Заплетнюк // Вільне життя плюс. – 2016. – № 7 (29 січ.). – С. 5. – (Згадали і вшанували)

However I feel I need to point out that the article never failed GNG because GNG does not depend on the inclusion of the relevant sources in the article, just their existence. @AriTheHorse, I appreciate your work nominating articles for deletion but please don't assume no sources exist until you have checked in the relevant language(s)! If in doubt, ask someone who speaks those languages. It's not fair to go right ahead and nominate articles for deletion, because this places the onus on Ukrainian wikipedians to save articles documenting their culture from constant deletion attacks. We lose countless potentially-notable articles this way every year, the majority of which cover subjects not well-documented in English because they were/are not considered "worthy" of translation. When you misuse AfD this way, you perpetuate that injustice. Akakievich (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. My apologies. AriTheHorse 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and sorry if i came off quite severe. everyone has a wiki-issue close to their heart, and ukrainian/central asian articles getting improperly afd'd is mine. thanks for understanding <3 Akakievich (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This particular person is very controversial, but an essential link in understanding the developing of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in early 1990s for both the UAOC and the UOC-Kyivan Patriarchate. There is big speculations and accusations from the Russian Orthodox Church about the Ukrainian churches that are based in consecrating of this particular bishop. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my fault for posting the article prematurely without posting references and sources for further verification and information gathering. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above and recommend WP:SNOWCLOSE. Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvements to the article with the addition of references that show significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Society of Aesthetic Gynecology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 20 November 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. Feel free to have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible page move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piast Dragon[edit]

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

I just nominated it for deletion on pl wiki (our article is a translation of the pl wiki article). The problem here is major WP:OR (notability is less of a problem based on my BEFORE). The term Piast Dragon, or Polish terms listed on pl wiki, doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. The only semi-relevant and reliable source is Histmag (popular Polish history magazine) written by a minor historian ([44], author is a high school history teacher) on "Dragons and Sword in Polish heraldry". If we had an article on dragons in heraldry, I'd say we can merge the one sentence referneced to it, but since we don't, the best WP:ATD I can think of is to move this to dragons in Polish heraldry combined with 99% TNTing this to a stub-stub (if we remove all other content, with is either unreferenced, or referenced to unreliable sources, or primary ones), leaving just the Histmag ref. The topic may be notable (here's an academic article on dragons in Polish heraldry [45] and I see other relevant literature in my Polish-language GS query [46]) but I think this needs to be written from scratch. To recapitulate, the name of this article (Piast Dragon) is pure OR and 99% of the content here is unreferenced, or referenced to unreliable or primary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe we should just rename it to something like "Coat of arms of the Duchy of Czersk". I don't believe it should be deleted. It is still a historical symbol, and its clear its a local symbol used in Masovia to this day. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even have a reliable source that the picture or anything discussed in the article is named "Coat of arms of the Duchy of Czersk"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Piotrus:. There seem to be quite a good amount of sources mentioning this creature/coat of arms. Some even name it "Czersk Dragon". link Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A generic Google Book search? Pass. WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is not good enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the books within this search, as an example to your claim that there aren't any sources. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quotations. The topic of Coat of arms of the Duchy of Czersk might be notable, but I still think the current article, poorly referenced and titled, merits WP:TNT. Aforementioned article can be written from scratch, based on reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the books I was able to find that talk about the topic Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pieczęcie książąt mazowieckich - Page 168 Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński · 1978 "Herb w tej postaci znany jest z pieczęci średniej Janusza II 2 1471 r . z ( nr 74 ) , ale na pieczęci pieszej ... smok naprzemianległe na tarczy czteropolowej ) ; ściślejszy zakres jego panowania określał wizerunek smoka czerskiego"

Folia historiae artium - Volume 11 - Page 30 "wreszcie skrzydlaty smok stanowił godło ziemi czerskiej , jak o tym świadczy pieczęć Ziemowita księcia czersko - mazowieckiego z r . 1343"

Średniowieczne herby polskie - Page 64 Jerzy Łojko · 1985 "herb ziemi czersko-warszawskiej powstał w wyniku połączenia godła dawnej dzielnicy czerskiej ( smok ) z godłem osobistym książąt i zarazem całego Mazowsza ( orzeł )"

Wielki herbarz rodów polskich - Page 86 Andrzej Kulikowski · 2005 "... smok ( prawdopodobnie zielony ) stanowił godło dzielnicy czerskiej , a jego pierwsze wyobrażenie występuje na pieczęci ks ...".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentry on adequacy of sources mentioned would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Start fresh when (if) reliable sources become available. Renata•3 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second opinion from other editors on these newly discovered sources would help a closer come to a reasonable closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreliable. Someone could re-create a redirect in hopes that someone can eventually find sources. But right now there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article gets deleted, someone should go to Greek Wikipedia and tell them on the talk page of their article (a note in English would be fine), since I doubt anybody from there is following this conversation.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pl wiki article got renamed since nobody except Artemis Andromeda participated in discussion there. Well, that's their problem, from our perspective at least, I guess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the name "Piast Dragon" is WP:OR, as well as suggesting that we are dealing with a "Slavic dragon" (my guess: żmij). The latter is nonsensical because żmij was a huge reptile without legs or wings. However, the topic itself is notable. There are several articles about it, such as Wojciech Górczyk's "Traces of the reception of Arthurian legends in the heraldry of the Czersk Piasts and Polish chronicles" ([47]). As you can see from the name, the author clearly suggests that we are dealing with an Arthurian dragon/wyvern. The author also uses terms such as "dragon of Czersk" or "dragon of the dukes of Czersk," or alternatively "coat of arms of the dukes of Czersk," one of which would be a good name for the article. So basically I think the article should be kept under a changed name. As for the content of the article itself and the facts given in it, I am not sure, they need verification.Marcelus (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe the article should be renamed, you need to suggest a specific article title or your suggestion is likely to be discounted. Also, do not move an article in the middle of an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Charleston Promise Neighborhood[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Asian Strategic Studies-India[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Economics, Africa, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 20 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outwood Academy Riverside[edit]

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

Article about a local secondary school which fails to assert notability. Links are to government lists of schools and routine local press coverage that confirms that the school exists, but there is nothing to show any particular notability. There are a number of other articles for these "Outwood" schools that are similar. Flip Format (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Added a couple references that were less routine and more substantial. Flurrious (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked the refs found by Flurrious (thanks for finding these) and still don't see coverage that is not run of the mill. They are also both Teesside Live refs, and we already had two of those in the article, so this doesn't add a further independent source. As the school has only been in operation three years, I think it is too soon for it to meet WP:GNG. Redirect to Outwood Grange Academies Trust would also be an option (I don't think there is enough content to make a merge worthwhile). Tacyarg (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Education Policy of India[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Delhi. Skynxnex (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This article have no WP:SIGCOV and fail to fullfil WP:NCORP guidelines Stayed, so article can be deleted. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:18, 20 November 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!} 03:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Edward Sweney[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, article may only have been created because he did have a notable daughter, not everyone to have been awarded the King's Police Medal is notable, it's not like e.g. the Victoria Cross. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The KPM is fairly common and does not make someone notable, but it was actually very unusual for a bar to be awarded for it. I think this meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that there were 54 bars and one second bar. PatGallacher (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which rather supports my comment! 55 bars in 70 years throughout the largest empire in history is really not very many. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. There's nothing much here (we don't even know what he got the medals for), and the sourcing is terrible. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sourcing establishing why being Deputy Inspector General of Police in Madras would possibly be notable or why his receipt of a common medal specific to his position is notable. Just because the specific type of award given was uncommon doesn't mean recipients are notable absent better coverage. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Nazzal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Jordan. Skynxnex (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more opinions here? This article has been PROD'd several times so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that might satisfy WP:GNG

Waterfelt (talk) 06:45, 20 November 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 Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. Redirecting as it's stated all of the relevant content has been Merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portland and Western 1501[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No indication of notability in article. One article is from a possible RS and contains SIGCOV of the subject's paint scheme. Other sources are either SELFPUB or just lists that include the subject (or are both). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Oregon. Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree , even rather deep google search did not give me any sites that would satisfy RS. AriTheHorse 03:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of individual notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary of)( the parts that can be verified to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. There is no evidence of independent notability, but equally there is no reason this cannot be included as part of the broader article per WP:PRESERVE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already merged the relevant content to the article in September, which saved me a couple minutes! Agree on the PRESERVE element, but it looks like there's really nothing else that can be merged. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we need to retain the edit history here for attribution purposes, a redirect is the best way to do this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf, same as last AfD, if it's already been merged do you perhaps want to suggest a redirect? TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said directly above, if content has been merged we must keep a redirect for attribution purposes. A !vote to merge can be taken as automatic support for a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No evidence of individual notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article. It's not noteworthy at all. BigSneeze444 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 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 Majlis-ash-Shura. If there is a disagreement about the Redirect target article, please discuss it on the Redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majlis al-Shura[edit]

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

Redirect to Hamas#Leadership_and_structure, which already includes pretty much all the information in this unnecessary WP:CFORK. Longhornsg (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Majlis-ash-Shura which is the correct PTOPIC for this term and this is simply a poor transliteration of the Arabic (see Sun and moon letters). nableezy - 02:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as simply the fact that there is this disagreement indicates that there is ambiguity that should be disambiguated. AriTheHorse 03:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Majlis-ash-Shura - this is simply a generic name for a leadership council, non-specific to any polity, and should redirect, as noted above, to the over-arching page for the generic term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by Kuru as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Anami[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. References on the page are about the World Designing Forum and also fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA (same as the ones I found in a WP:BEFORE. CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 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 Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Pale (radio program)[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show by an activist group. No WP:SIGCOV and both sources are WP:PROMO anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but several other sources I've found seem to contradict each other..?

See:

This source claiming the show ended in 2014,

and This other source seems to indicate that the show is still running. Both on their own seem to have no reason to be untrustworthy, so so much for WP:V on several areas of the article...

I think it should be deleted AriTheHorse 02:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Judaism, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Jews for Racial and Economic Justice as the show the organization sponsors does not appear to be independently notable. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, a redirect to Jews for Racial and Economic Justice is appropriate given the dearth of independent sources discussing this subject matter alone, but a full delete ignores the search for this that a user might have, and that would be better suited to being redirected back to the parent organization. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As a note, I personally wouldn’t have even sent to AfD. Think it prob could have just been uncontroversially redirected. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. AryKun (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamari Epitashvili[edit]

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she has some coverage in Georgian but it's mostly weak and/or non-independent. For example, Crystal Sport is just a squad listing and GFF only mentions her once in the main prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Miletić[edit]

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

The subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found. JTtheOG (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There were sources, but just mentions the player. No in-depth sources. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 05:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i often come across sports players that seem to be similarly sourced. yet the articles are retained, as a stub, this may be all this merits and is capable of becoming, but i don't know if that by itself should be cause for full deletion. again, only commenting, this is neither a keep or delete statement. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eirini Michail[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Not to be confused with the singer of the same name. Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:48, 20 November 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.