Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable charitable foundation. PepperBeast (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "exists in Google Trends" is a rational not clearly grounded grounded in the notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:56, 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! 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Air Force[edit]

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

Plain and simple, this is not a real organization. The vast majority of the references in this text are either 1.) unrelated to the subject of any military air assets in Kosovo, 2.) SELFPUB that make no direct mention of a "Kosovo Air Force" (and are apparently authored by the editor behind this article), or 3.) are citations to Wikipedia itself. Altogether, this might even qualify as a WP:HOAX. For this reason, I don't see it as a suitable merge/redirect candidate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Europe, and Kosovo. Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kosovo does not have an independent air force. A Google search of "Forca Ajrore e Kosoves" gives no results confirming that the name is in use, so I think it's safe to say that this is a hoax. - ZLEA T\C 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have sometimes commented on an article that I have seen hoaxes that are better referenced, This is one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep anything that is verifiably true and rename to Aviation units of the Kosovo military. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no precedent for this sort of article. There is no verifiable information that suggests that the aviation assets are organized into any independently administered units. Relevant material regarding some aerial assets in the Kosovar military are addressed in Kosovo Security Force. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to split off the entire "Equipment" section if the article became too large, but I'm not sure it's reached that point yet. - ZLEA T\C 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is correct, no false information and all references are verified! I don’t suggest this article to be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.179.31.65 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give us an example of a reliable source that states that there is a branch of the KSF called the "Kosovo Air Force" or "Forca Ajrore e Kosoves"? Just one source will do. - ZLEA T\C 01:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an independent air force doesn't seem to exist, anything equipment acquisitions not already in the can be added to the Kosovo Security Force article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources given and the logo purportedly uploaded by the Defense Ministry appears to be a badly done MS Paint job. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also noting that the image for "Batllava Airport" is actually of Toledo Express Airport of Toledo, Ohio and the image for Sllatina Underground Airbase is of "Betset airfield" from Israel, per the commons data. While not reasons for deletion per se, they are further evidence just how little this article is based on reality. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:57, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterland and Monster Island[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any sources that really discuss this subject in depth beyond plot summaries of movies it appeared in. The article is currently very poorly sourced, and the situation doesn't seem like it can improve. Not sure on an ATD to this, given it's a very general location, and not really discussed on the series page. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:44, 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 List of minor planets#Main index. as suggested by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

155142 Tenagra[edit]

155142 Tenagra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO; (re-)redirect to list   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and MB: pinging contributors since last redirect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:39, 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 merge‎ to Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novyi Korotych post office attack[edit]

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

I wondering if this on it's own article is right. I would assume there is a better article to merge and redirect this too. However I am unsure, I simply don't feel this little bit (stub) need a separate article. The information should be added somewhere else, but I am unsure where. Maybe other participants can suggest a better venue for the content to be and redirected too, hence this nomination. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war, doesn't appear to be more notable than the other hundreds of similar strikes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Post office doesn't appear to be any sort of historical structure needing an article, rather non-descript building, so nothing to merge to... Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Oaktree b: Novyi Korotych, a newish article on the town has a bit about the attack. But You might be right above one of many things hit in an on going war. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war"... with 8 people killed. I guess 8 people killed is now insignificant for some. But for others, each attack on civilian objects with such fatalities should be recorded in history. For reference, Gošić killings also has "only" 8 people killed, and also has its own article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present).  —Michael Z. 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @3E1I5S8B9RF7: I never said it was insignificant, I said the content needed to provided to a better location than the single entry it currently is and Mzajac Provided a better venue (article) to add it too, but having a look, I see it's missing an entry for October 2023. Regards Govvy (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 1 off missile attack part of a broader war. Does not meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar: Based on WP:PRESERVE, shouldn't the article just be merged to its most likely parent article? Also WP:EVENT says (near the bottom) If the notability of an event is in question but it [...] can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Dan the Animator 06:12, 25 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! 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect & merge into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). For the above deletes: while I agree this article shouldn't be kept, delete should be a last resort option. From going through a lot of the Russo-Ukrainian articles, you'd be surprised how many would benefit from mergers of these sorts of things, even if just a sentence or two. Leaving a redirect is a perfectly reasonable, common-place thing to do, and for an attack with casualties, I don't see any reason why not to leave one. Best, Dan the Animator 06:07, 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 Arms (video game). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Min Min (character)[edit]

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

This is one I had to look at deeply, but in all honesty it fails SIGCOV and notability. All the coverage is minor quotes and no real in-depth analysis or discussion outside of possibly Gavin Jasper's statement, and not much indication why Min-Min is any more important than another other character from ARMS, let alone notable as a fictional character.

Trying to find additional sources discussing the subject turned out fruitless also, outside of a lot of articles mentioning she exists. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: While there are additional sources in the previous AfD, I will argue that they don't offer enough, as they're isolated to gameplay of that particular Smash Bros. title and not really much even then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article suffers from a common problem in fictional character articles: trying to Voltron a bunch of trivial mentions to make a full article. This and this are ones I consider SIGCOV, so it does get close, but IMO does not pass it - everything else is trivial (i.e. a simple announcement) or primary, or from a content farm website that doesn't count towards notability per consensus. I certainly think a List of Arms (video game) characters would work well, but this character alone? Not really happening. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Exactly as Zxcvbnm said, the sources are a bunch of trivial mentions or quotes cherry picked out of general reviews of the game, basically being used as a WP:REFBOMB to give the illusion of genuine significant coverage. I would also have no objection to using this as a Redirect to Arms (video game), if other editors would prefer. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the verdict of the previous AFD. Not to mention, there's been more added since. Even if we're not counting the CBR and Screen Rant sources, the character had her own review, base on her appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, by IGN, which is cited in the article. Then there's the Destructoid and Kotaku article which goes more in-depth on her inclusion in the game too. Surely, these give indication that she's more important than most of the characters from ARMS. MoonJet (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But those are due to being in Smash Bros, and are the same level of commentary any Smash Bros. character received. It doesn't display actual importance or commentary on her, especially when compared to Twintelle, who came from the same games but actively received analysis. It's refbombing with small quotes instead simply because she was in Smash.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But not all the Smash characters received IGN reviews, not even all the DLC characters. Coverage pertaining to her appearance in Smash Ultimate does not and should not negate her notability. These sources pass what we look for in WP:GNG, that being significant coverage. If multiple in-depth articles for her isn't significant coverage, then I don't know what is. MoonJet (talk) 07:48, 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! 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect per reasons above. Most of the sources at reception were weak. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Though I stand by my keep arguments above (especially considering the fact no list article for the ARMs characters exist, meaning there's nowhere to even merge the important information to), I would settle on a redirect to Arms (video game), rather than a delete, as a plausible search term. MoonJet (talk) 20:32, 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 keep‎. I'm not seeing a strong rebuttal to the provided sources. An individual is not required to pass topic-specific guidelines if they clear GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra al-Tawil[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bushra al-Tawil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this page for deletion as it does not fall under WP:N guidelines, especially as a biography of a living person. None of the following information that the article presents is significanct to warrant an entire wikipedia article dedicated to this living person:

1. She is a journalist and human rights activist - her contributions to the field to do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST.
2. Her father and husband are Hamas terrorists who have spent time in prison - neither are relevant to her notability as per WP:INVALIDBIO.
3. She has been arrested numerous times - The perpetrator of the crime is not a renowned national nor international figure, and the motive of her crimes (although poorly documented) is unlikely to be unusual. Therefore this is also not satisfactory under WP:CRIMINAL.

Given the article cannot establish her notability, I am suggesting that this article be deleted until (if) she does something noteworthy. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination focuses on all the wrong things here. The notability for this biography is clearly based on WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED, rather than a particular vocation - news hits for the individual are prolific and span many years, as is plain from even a brief search. The nominator's POV language, "Hamas terrorists", and evident fixation on this page, having previously nominated the page for deletion when not EC (resulting in a procedural close), before diving right back into an AfD nomination after passing the 500/30 mark, do not inspire confidence here at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you correctly pointed out, the previous nomination resulted in a procedural close. The validity of the AfD nomination did not play a role in its closure.
Please refrain from personal attacks by claiming I have some "fixation" on the page or disparaging my edit count. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I merely stated fact: you returned here immediately post-500 edits. And while the validity of your arguments may not have played a role in the previous close, your opening statement here is clearly not neutral, per MOS:TERRORIST, but leans on a POV. Are other editors meant to turn a blind eye to this? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does this fact contribute to the discussion? My edit count and EC status are not relevant to Bushra al-Tawil's notability. Dazzling4 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "Hamas terrorist" is also irrelevant to this discussion since talk pages are not subject to NPOV. Not to mention that the source used to include her family in Bushra al-Tawil#Family describes Hamas as a "terror group." Dazzling4 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worth noting that this page currently exists in five languages on Wikipedia. The subject has a profile on Addameer in Arabic, and there is generally voluminous coverage in Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The only reason to not keep this article would be if there is another article suitable to merge it into? But i would prefer to keep Palestine related topics separate (unmerged) in case they end up expanding rapidly in the near future. Irtapil (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping articles around in case the subject becomes notable in the future is not Wikipedia policy. Dazzling4 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL. Clyde [trout needed] 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it can be merged into Palestinian prisoners in Israel? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After reviewing the arguments and the subject's coverage, it seems clear that Bushra al-Tawil's notability hinges primarily on her detentions, aligning with the concept of One-event notability. This principle suggests that if a person or entity is notable for only one event (or in this case a series of detentions), they may not merit a standalone article. In this case, the references to al-Tawil predominantly focus on her detentions, with minimal coverage about other aspects of her life or contributions. Furthermore, the main source of information about her, the 'Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network', does not qualify as an independent WP:RS. Notability on Wikipedia is not inherited by virtue of being covered in multiple languages or having transient news coverage. It requires sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage by reliable sources, as outlined in WP:SIGCOV.
I also noticed that at the end of September 2023, Israel was holding 1,310 people in administrative detention, based on [2], so being detained seems to be relatively common. Marokwitz (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how exactly are repeated arrests of a journalist, spaced over a course of more than 10 years, constitute only "one event"? We have multiple sources giving her WP:SIGCOV over a period of more than 10 years. And even if you're right, then isn't that cause to keep this article and move it to Arrests of Bushra al-Tawil? VR talk 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her arrests are covered in Palestinian prisoners in Israel. But, other than being arrested and released multiple times, she doesn't seem much different from many other people. No evidence of notable journalism works; It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented. If she was a notable person, then surely reliable sources would cover such basic things? That's what 'significant coverage' requires. Marokwitz (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented." - welcome to the Israeli justice system and the wonderful world of administrative detention. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She had a trial in 2011 and was then sentenced again by a court in 2015, so there was at least some judicial process here . Marokwitz (talk) 15:06, 25 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! 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She served in Israeli prison, is the daughter of a senior Hamas member... I don't see what else is notable... I do agree that its best she be merged into another article. How about the Palestinian prisoners in Israel ? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is already covered there. Marokwitz (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At best, there is nothing more than WP:1E notability. I'd suggest merge but this article violates NPOV with heavily biased and unreliable sources used that it would require a complete rewrite anyway. The sources cited are all about the one event or non-reliable (except for [3] which is a passing mention in an article about her father's arrest as a terrorist). Thmymerc (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely not 1E, with coverage of her arrests in 2019 and 2020. There is extensive coverage in Arabic in al-Jazeera, al Araby al Jadeed, and el-Watan, and with further coverage by Reporters Without Borders and Coalition For Women In Journalism clears GNG easily. nableezy - 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, she is one of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, so her detentions are not notable. Second, her being the son of a senior Hamas leader, a relationship that has led to coverage of her detentions, is WP:INHERITED. Third, entries in Adameer and Samidoun, advocacy groups and not RS, are irrelevant for establishing notability. Fourth, most of the Arabic-language coverage cited above is also based on who her father is. Longhornsg (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is determined by sourcing, not by how many Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons. And no, the Arabic sources are about her, which anybody who even uses google translate can see. That also is not what WP:INHERITED means, what that means is by itself being related, either a person or a topic, to some notable person does not make one notable, but where the sources cover that individual that gives them their own notability. Addameer is certainly a reliable source, widely cited by other reliable sources. nableezy - 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you on Addameer. It's an advocacy organization. Though I guess, then you'd agree that the ADL, AJC, UN Watch, et al are RS as well, as they are widely cited in other RS. But this is prob not the place for this discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ADL is widely cited on WP. Those other groups are not treated as reliable by other sources, so we should not either. Pretending like Addameer is treated like UN Watch is silly, and a basic association fallacy to boot. Each of these things are evaluated on their own merits, not based on some random person on the internet saying "it's an advocacy organization". So is Amnesty International, and that too is reliable. nableezy - 22:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hundreds of mentions in the press at least from 2014 to now. Use the spelling "Bushra al-Taweel" to find many things that "Bushra al-Tawil" misses. Zerotalk 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's actually more under that spelling. Good spot! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is/are diverse vast news/info/sites on the internet which can indicate her notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above, there is coverage. Seawolf35 T--C 18:47, 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 keep‎. I've ignored the potential sock puppetry and canvassing, but what's left is a growing opinion that there are sufficient sources to improve the article, and therefore it shouldn't be deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Porter[edit]

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

Unsourced biography that has been bouncing back and forth from a stub without sources to a redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. At best, return to a redirect to Sean Combs#Family and protect. Geoff | Who, me? 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts and IP addresses contributions prior to this being semi-protected to avoid disruption. Daniel (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The page is basic biographical information. Considering that the subject was with a celebrity and existed around celebrities, all of the sources are legitimate. The media sources are from mainstream media magazines.PushinUpdates (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — PushinUpdates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep: The page consists of legitimate biographical information regarding the celebrity. Different sources online prove it is legitimate. Looking up the individual, her information from Wikipedia is completely gone.
    Resources101 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Resources101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Resources101, do you know PushinUpdates? Or any other current or former editors? Just wondering how you both found this AFD discussion on your first day as an editor. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should be ashamed for trying to take down this page. She was not married to Sean Combs. The page should not be linked to Sean Combs. He did not treat her well and should not control what people know about this beautiful woman. Leave this site alone. 104.186.234.36 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 104.186.234.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just discuss the sources please, I don't care for the rest of it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Don't Erase Kim Porter from Wiki. She is an important person loved by millions. It's hard enough knowing she's passed away. Please do not wipe away information about her and who she was.A Loving Mother, Model, Entrepreneur, daughter, sister and friend. Why are you even considering this, its hurtful. She's a shining example of love to the African American community and those who honor and love her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.252.70 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 99.188.252.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Changing my response. Im not sure there's enough for WP:ACTOR or even WP:GNG. There are a number of short articles specifically related to her death, and one article about her in a magazine from 2008. I'm not convinced there was enough WP:SIGCOV of her. A lot of tabloid stuff, and mostly just mentioning her because she was dating Sean Combs. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - This is the first time I've seen someone wanting to out-right delete an article talk page, because they don't like the edits therein. You have the options of (1) Simply delete the edits if you think they are disruptive, or (2) archive the edits. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That said, the Personal life section in the article does not confer any notability on Kim Porter. That leaves the Career section, and there's just no substance there to give her notability. All these instances of "appeared in" could be nothing more than small parts, or walk-ons. This just doesn't look notable to me. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Even setting aside the WP:NOTINHERIT argument, there's just no substance there isn't how notability is assessed: see my comment above, the Jet cover story and Source article in particular. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for your input. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing independent notability from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Weak keep. The Jet magazine spread wasn't loading more than one page for me earlier, which made it seem much less comprehensive than it is. That said, I'm generally hesitant to attribute much weight to celebrity-oriented magazine stories that are based around interviews. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The erasure of Kim's page will play into the narrative that Sean "Diddy" Combs is trying to cover up something nefarious. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a gossip rag. Her page should NOT be deleted as she's a significant figure in the world of Black American celebrities as both a model, a wife/girlfriend, and a mother to children who are now famous themselves. Also, per her status, sources will be media magazines and other smaller publications most likely, which tracks as non A-list ethnic celebrities generally aren't covered by mainstream media. — J (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2023 (EST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chaoticdiva (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Keep. She was a model for decades that turned into acting. Her death was covered by every major publication there is. If necessary it could be an actor/model stub but a complete deletion is not needed. Dam!ta (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dam!ta (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    I've not canvassed this discussion. I was shocked to see she would even be up for deletion. She's been on the cover or major magazines, an acting career, a notable model. Dam!ta (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A three-month gap of editing to come back and immediately and only !vote here seems questionable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Diddy, Kim Porter have been in the news a lot over the last few weeks. I'm not sure how that's questionable. 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Dam!ta (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hameltion and Dam!ta. I think there is significant, independent and reliable coverage of Porter. She had a cover story and 5-page spread in Jet magazine; both her death and cause of death were covered in major publications like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Essence and The Sydney Morning Herald; she received coverage for her role in co-founding Three Brown Girls and for her roles in film and TV. As Dam!ta mentioned, she had been a model since the 1980s, and had shot a number of ad campaigns. Article should be expanded rather than deleted, as based on what I have read, she was modeling internationally with Wilhelmina Models, so there is likely some more coverage of that time period. As Hameltion mentioned, not all of this coverage is available online; some of the coverage is only available in printed magazines like The Source and Runway Magazine (and she was on the cover of the latter). Melonkelon (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given there are multiple RS to support notability [4] [5], her obituary was published in the NYT, and she had a Jet Magazine cover article from 2008 [6]. This nomination is baffling.--Citrivescence (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I feel. It's a little baffling that her page is up for deletion. Dam!ta (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG (plenty of focused coverage referenced throughout this discussion, in well-respected publications) and WP:HEY (well done to Melonkelon and the many other editors who contributed sources and edits to this article, which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated). Cielquiparle (talk) 03:49, 29 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar Khola Hawa[edit]

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

WP:MILL coverage, no claim to notability. Sohom (talk) 20:34, 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! 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable television series of this year. Xegma(talk) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that previous AFD decision was to Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Spender[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a fundraiser, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. Apart from stating that he exists, the only other attempt at a notability claim here is notable relatives -- but notability is not inherited, so just being related to famous people isn't enough in and of itself. The only sourcing present here, however, is a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-making source.
As I don't have solid access to archived British media coverage beyond what I could find in a simple Google search, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but all I get on Google is more primary sources that aren't support for notability, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, tricky one. We might be able to find WP:BASIC, but I suspect a lot of it will be in offline sources. I'm not sure what the best ATD is right now. Currently has a brief mention at Epistle to a Godson. Could have a mention at Index on Censorship where he's verifiably known to have worked for several years including as director and publisher [7][8][9][10] (some of those are not independent)
    Most other mentions I'm finding right now are pretty trivial. There are a couple sentences of independent coverage here [11], but we'd need a lot more. —siroχo 05:54, 8 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! 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. There's a broad claim to notability here that is not strictly inherited, and absent a good WP:ATD that can guide readers to the right information, I think I'd lean towards an IAR keep (noting that there is plenty of verifiable info) over a delete that would leave the encyclopedia a bit worse off. There's no single best redirect or merge target. —siroχo 06:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLP requires strong sourcing and the single source in the article is a dead link. siroχo's BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If someone finds SIGCOV about the subject or sourcing and a suitable merge target, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  16:25, 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! 22:47, 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 no consensus‎. A redirect discussion, if needed, can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achdus[edit]

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

An obscure and not notable political party that participated in two elections gaining no seats. Previous version incorrectly stated that it gained three seats in the parliament (which would imply notability), but according to well regarded biographical dictionary of Seimas members, it was another Jewish party that gained three seats. Source: Ragauskas, Aivas; Tamošaitis, Mindaugas, eds. (2007). Lietuvos Respublikos Seimų I (1922–1923), II (1923–1926), III (1926–1927), IV (1936–1940) narių biografinis žodynas. Didysis Lietuvos parlamentarų biografinis žodynas (in Lithuanian). Vol. 3. Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. ISBN 978-9955-20-345-2. Renata•3 03:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it seems that the party was notable, it was part of the parliament. 1922 Lithuanian parliamentary election article clearly says that the party had three MPs. Also later members of this party were on the list of the Minorities Electoral Bloc, so that's why it seems that Achdus didn't have any MPs in 1923 elections, but they had for example Isaak Holcberg. Marcelus (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Achdus did not have 3 seats in the Seimas. That is an error (since 2012!). I fixed one table but not the other. The 3 seats were actually another Jewish party (Zionist group For the Nation and Autonomy). Renata•3 23:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Achdus still had their deputies, but as a part of largel minorities bloc Marcelus (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the nomination, it's not clear which parties are being confused. My understanding is that what is being referred to as Achdus in Lithuania, is the Jewish Peoples Party, which was more commonly known by its Yiddish name, Folkspartei and for which we have an article already which covers both Poland and Lithuania. In the 1920 Lithuanian elections, the Jewish parties formed joint electoral tickets, which produced 6 representatives, two of whom were from Folkspartei/JPP/Achdus. In 1923, there was at least one Folskpartei member elected - Ozer Finkelstein. So I would tend towards keep with a focus on the post-WW1 period for this article, although a rename to Jewish People's Party (Lithuania) might be appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Goldsztajn: That's the thing that I can't find any sources to explain what this "Achdus" was or where it came from. It might be misspelled and should read "Achdut". It maybe be related to Agudat Yisrael or World Agudath Israel. The article was created solely based on an erroneous claim that it won 3 seats in 1922 elections. Renata•3 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi @Renata3 - Achdut (אַחְדוּת) is a Hebrew word, it means unity. Agudat Yisrael/World Agudath Israel are religious political movements, the JPP/Folkspartei was secular. What I can see from is that in the 1920 election there is a braod coalition list including Zionists, religious and non/anti-Zionists - which includes the Folkspartei/JPP who take two seats. In 1922 the JPP contests the election separately and fails to win any seats, whereas the Zionist Group takes 3. This article in Lithuanian covers national minorities in the Lithuanian elections for the period 1920-1926, there's three mentions of Achdus. We need cleanup and discussion on the exact name, but I'm not convinced delete is the appropriate option here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Goldsztajn: I saw the article, but it's of zero help - it just states how many votes were received (based on Lithuanian statistical yearbook) in 1922 and 1923. Renata•3 02:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Hi - @Renata3 - I wouldn't say *zero* help, it clearly shows that Achdus relates to the JPP. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Hmmm ... ok, so looking at this further - I wonder is this JPP-Achdus in 1922 a split from the Folkspartei? @Renata3 Do you have access to candidate lists for the 1922 election? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          @Goldsztajn: according to this (page 3) there were 4 candidates in Kaunas: Nachmanas Rachmilevičius [lt], Ber Šapiro (rabbi), Izakas Golcbergas [lt], Fišelis Beras (merchant). Renata•3 03:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Hi @Renata3 - thanks that very helpful! ok, this is beginning to make sense now, I think! The problem is the inconsistencies regarding the name; I mistakenly accepted at face value the attribution in the article to the JPP. Now that you've sent the newspaper with the candidates it makes more sense and I can see the title as "Jewish Peoples Election Group - Unity". I'm guessing Achdus is a Lithuanian rendering of the Hebrew word (?), which would make sense given the list of candidates you've just provided, who were definitely not from the secular side of politics. I'd now probably lean towards a redirect to Natan Rachmilewitz/Nachmanas Rachmilevičius. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Actually, Issac Golzberg/Izakas Golcbergas might be the better redirect as it seems he's the only person actually to sit in the Seimas under the banner of Achdus. His entry in the Seimas website mentions membership of Achdus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is a consensus on a Redirect, we need to see some agreement on the target article. It would help if participants returned to finish this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see previous reisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 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! 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Jealous God[edit]

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

They existed, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; only found 2 brief mentions of their existence. Darling (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I realize that it's more challenging to find good sources for acts that haven't been active since the early nineties, there just isn't enough here to make a case for notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:20, 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! 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dingbat the Singing Cat[edit]

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

A song with absolutely no notability that I can discern; the only sources online are simple lists of songs or lyric websites with no news, reviews, or anything similar out there that I can find. CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat, Cash Box, and Variety. Those three are plenty enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 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 Texas Longhorns#Facilities. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparral Ice[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N, and I wasn't convinced on any particular merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic–Gallaudet rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is not a notable rivalry. It's been a totally one-sided series between two lower-level programs in which Catholic has won 21 games to one game for Gallaudet. There are random passing references to a "rivalry" (e.g., here), but nothing in independent, reliable sources that deals with the series in depth -- and certainly no SIGCOV of a "rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how wrestling, boxing, and bike racing rivals have any relevance here, and there are no stand-alone rivalry articles on those pairings in any event. But my contention is this: Competitiveness isn't determinative by itself, but it absolutely should be one of the factors we consider in deciding whether a series of college football games has risen to the level of a notable rivalry that is worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The depth of SIGCOV is, of course, the most important issue, but in close cases, other attributes may factor into the assessment as well, e.g, competitiveness, geographic proximity (schools with geographic proximity and especially bordering states more likely to generate animosity that makes for a notable rivalry), the existence of a rivalry trophy, frequency of competition (teams that face each other every year are more likely to be rivals). In this case, there is no in-depth coverage of this series as a rivalry, and the other factors support the conclusion that this is not a Wiki-notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the LSU Tigers and Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns have played each other 22 times dating back to 1902, and LSU has won all 22 matches, mostly by huge margins. See here. Despite the geographic proximity within football-crazed Louisiana, the one-sided nature of the series makes it hard for followers to develop a true rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 - I would personally rank SIGCOV as the most important above all. The problem with competitiveness is results change (see Michigan-Ohio State where Michigan was undefeated early) and with proximity, you get situations like Notre Dame and USC, which are nowhere close to each other. I do also think rivalries in general are partly a media narrative than anything else.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SIGCOV is the paramount touchstone. The other factors shed light in close cases. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Bowl (MIT–WPI)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking WP:SIGCOV in multilple, reliable, independent sources discussing this series in depth as a "rivalry". My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything. Article has been tagged for lack of sourcing since 2018 with no improvement having been made. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Hyong-jin[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy War (Merrimack–Holy Cross)[edit]

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

Not a notable series. The teams have only played two games. There are other rivalries known as the Holy War (e.g. Holy War (Boston College–Notre Dame)), but this one is not notable. Cbl62 (talk) 20:18, 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 merge‎ to MIDI beat clock. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulses per quarter note[edit]

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

WP:NOTE and could be reasonably covered under an appropriate article of broader topic Pdubs.94 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Pulses per quarter note" article in Wikipedia needs to be expanded a little bit, in my opinion this page should not be deleted as it tells information about time division in midi files. 192.68.163.180 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Müller, Meinard (2007-09-09). Information Retrieval for Music and Motion. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-74048-3.

      The article notes: "The number of pulses per quarter note (PPQN) is to be specified at the beginning in the so-called header of a MIDI file and refers to all subsequent MIDI messages."

    2. Sweetwater (1997-12-09). "PPQN (Pulses Per Quarter Note, sometimes Parts Per Quarter Note)". Retrieved 2023-11-28.

      The article notes: "The timing resolution of a MIDI sequencer. PPQN indicates the number of divisions a quarter note has been split into, and directly relates to the ability of the sequencer to accurately represent fine rhythmic variations in a performance, or to recreate the “feel” of a performance. Older sequencers were capable of 96 PPQN (sometimes even less), which often resulted in a stiff “quantized” feel to the music (even if it hadn’t actually been quantized). Current versions can reach 768 PPQN or even higher resolutions, which is more than adequate for most musical applications. Note that the resolution of the sequencer is especially important at slower tempos. If your sequencer is limited to a lower resolution, one trick is the double the tempo of the song, then perform the parts in half time. This effectively results in a doubling of resolution."

    3. Loops and Grooves: The Musician's Guide to Groove Machines and Loop Sequencers. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2003. ISBN 978-0-634-04813-5.

      The article notes: "If a sequencer has a limited number of steps, which was always the case with analog and digital hardware sequencers, the concept of resolution becomes an important factor. In this context, resolution means the number of steps used to represent a note or measure. Resolution is a numerical value expressed as pulses per quarter note or ppqn."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pulses per quarter note to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added citations to three books, two of which (Anderton and Rumsey) have enough information that they should be considered SIGCOV. I have some concerns that the main body of the article (the long 2nd paragraph discussing feel) is basically original research, whose ideas are supported by the texts but not really in those terms. That notwithstanding, there's sufficient mention of this concept to merit inclusion. Oblivy (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge so it seems there is value in having this content remain. Does it make sense to merge with MIDI beat clock or roll up into MIDI? Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as article has been around since 2009 and barely squeaks by WP:SIZERULE guidelines. could easily be covered under MIDI beat clock Pdubs.94 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MIDI beat clock. Changing my vote. I've made the argument for keep but the merge target is really a good option.Oblivy (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Williams[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it lacks sufficient reliable sources that are independent and secondary in nature, which are necessary to verify the content and establish the subject's notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines. The article currently does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and notability. --Muchasz (talk) 17:28, 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.

10-Pin Bowling (video game)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing my nomination as sources were found. (non-admin closure)‎ NegativeMP1 21:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

WP:N failure. I couldn't find any sources for it besides listings and the IGN review already in the article, and one review is not enough to satisfy notability. NegativeMP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very generic game with a generic title in itself that could apply to hundreds of games and proof of concept class projects. Nate • (chatter) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mobygames lists reviews from Video Games and Total!, but I was unable to find a scan of the Total! review. With these two reviews and the IGN review on the article, appears to meet GNG. Waxworker (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST. It's clear more reviews were found so I would urge the nom to withdraw the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Brook[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This group has had 13 (sic) albums on the national Oricon chart in Japan, three of which are listed here, and thus this easily passes WP:NBAND. Their latest single went to #12 on the chart and stayed on the chart for over 3 months, as shown here. They also pass several other criteria of WP:NBAND, including #5, #6, #10, and #11 (some of these were already reflected in the English article). Please check Oricon when making these kinds of nominations. Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekimasu. Darling (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear sources provided by Dekimasu. DCsansei (talk) 13:51, 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! 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Tucker[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Greatest claim of notability is a song that charted; I not that makes the song notable, not the musician. Fails the general and musician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If deleted, then Keith Tucker (footballer) should be moved into its place. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero coverage found for this musician, should be deleted. Charting could indicate notability, but there are no sources discussing him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't consider charting at 170 on a mix album that notable either; tried to find mentions of him in .fr websites, still no luck. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 15:41, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Kentucky football rivalry[edit]

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

While I found a couple passing references to a "Georgia–Kentucky rivalry" on Newspapers.com, I don't believe this matchup has received sufficient sustained coverage to qualify as a rivalry worthy of a stand-alone article. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not finding depth of coverage about a rivalry. I did find a passing reference or two. E.g., here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry has been a little something less than friendly."). And one of the sources questioned whether it was a top-level rivalry. See here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry certainly doesn't rank among the SEC's most heated."). Yes, the teams have played more than 75 times dating back to 1939, but other factors weigh negatively: (1) lack of geographic proximity/not border states; (2) not a competitive series (Georgia has dominated throughout the history--63–12–2); (3) no trophy or named series; and (4) lack of ranked matchups (2023 matched #1 vs #20 but that's about as good as it gets). Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Kentucky. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No evidence that this is a notable "rivalry". glman (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This rivalry has had some passing coverage over the years, but mere mentions and questioning whether the teams are even rivals at all don't lend to notability. User:Let'srun 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all above. Both of these teams have real rivalries elsewhere, and this ain't it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG with lack of SIGCOV specifically describing these teams as rivals. Being in the same conference and having many previous meetings does not automatically make teams rivals. Frank Anchor 13:03, 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 keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latham Park[edit]

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest that the stadium has much notability outside of Newtown_A.F.C. but possibly could be merged as an AtD JMWt (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:GEOLAND, WP:NBUILDING. (update) There are independent RS cites on the page. Including BBC and County Times. I feel this nomination is floored. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain more. It is not a habited place or a natural feature and isn’t a historical building of national important so I don’t see how that guideline applies JMWt (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geoland and NBuilding encompass the aspect of being a geographical location and the physical building of the stadium. Yes you need sources to establish this and there are sources, the place has links to a historic figure of George Latham (footballer), which adds the historical aspect. You have a multi-use venue, so a redirect straight to the football club is a no. Upon a google search, there are loads of small news articles about the place. That all adds up, the two BBC sources in the article [15], [16] and with the other sources is more than enough for basic GNG. Your nomination is floored. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I dispute this reading of the notability criteria. Passing and insignificant newspaper articles are not enough for the GNG or NBuilding. JMWt (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Newtown A.F.C. - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Govvy.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:30, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babatunde Bayo Lawal[edit]

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

A BEFORE gives me interviews from reliable sources thus failing the independent and in-depth coverage criteria needed to establish notability. Others are press releases. Nothing secondary or independent found. PS: Article was previously draftified by Jamiebuba. Reading Beans (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaning delete because most of the references are interviews which make the article fails WP:GNG. Ezra Cricket (talk) 18:40, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Heller[edit]

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

An IP user claiming to be the article subject has requested deletion of this biography per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. According to the IP editor they have retired and "no longer want or need a profile". It was also recently blanked by a different IP. As nominator I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources are affiliated, simple business announcements, bare mentions in discussion of the industry or company, etc. The "Businessweek profile" is a Bloomberg listing. Not finding anything better on google search, it all seems to be bare mentions in stories about the industry/acquisition of the company. I'm not seeing notability. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (reluctant): this seems even A7 speediable to me, and the sources fall short of GNG. My only reservation is that I wouldn't want to encourage the notion that simply because the (alleged) subject "no longer want[s] or need[s] a profile {sic} on wikipedia", we should get rid of it. Still, the article contains no evidence of notability (and I for one can't be bothered to go looking for it), so let's nix it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at it, I thought "delete", but I haven't looked to see whether there are sources that could save it. But I echo DoubleGrazing's concern, and if it is deleted, I would want somebody to reply to the IP explaining that it was deleted according to Wikipedia's policy, and should never have been there in the first place. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason not to comply with their wishes given the other comments. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Tangents: Mr. Heller and his father, Adam Heller should not be using Wikipedia (and our ranking in Google search results) for free PR, and I agree with the above: Wikipedia is not at their beck and call. If Therasense, Inc. existed, I'd propose redirecting there. FWIW, that company also appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT, so much so that the primary topic of Therasense is not even the company, but a court case establishing precedent in U.S. patent law (what would link to Therasense in Wikipedia, DuckDuckGo query). Similar situation for his other companies, SynAgile and AngioScore. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even disregarding the subject's request, it seems this biography shouldn't have been on Wikipedia in the first place. Mr. Heller's claims to notability are founding and/or managing a series of medical/pharmaceutical companies of which none have coverage on Wikipedia, and having filed several patents (which generally does not confer notability; anyone can file a patent). Reliable source coverage is practically nonexistent: he is mentioned in passing in several articles about his company or their products, or in coverage of his father Adam Heller's endeavours. I personally did not find any in-depth coverage of Mr. Heller himself, and see no reason not to grant the request to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:30, 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures#2000 as a viable AtD Star Mississippi 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fearmonger[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for not having significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 16:00, 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 Land of the Dead. Star Mississippi 02:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of the Dead[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for not having significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 15:58, 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. Complex/Rational 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Lemos[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced BLP with no signs of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Appears to have only had 90 minutes of play time in 2011/2012 in the second level of the Uruguayan football league system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Giles[edit]

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Highest level of play was the second level of the Chilean system and third level of the Argentina system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Gualdoni[edit]

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Highest level of success appears playtime at the second level of the Chilean system and third level of the Argentine system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 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.

University Heights (film)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as Cunard has located a number of reliable sources via Newspapers.com. Notability has been clearly demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Sock (tock talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]


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

The lone source for this article is a university news site that doesn't even mention the film by name. I entered various combinations of the film's name and year of release and found nothing on Google, Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives. The majority of results point to the cities of the same name. Given that there do not appear to be any reliable sources available that cover the film, this article clearly does not meet WP:NFO. Sock (tock talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cook, Linda (2004-06-24). "With 'University.' Bluebox reaches new heights". Quad-City Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "This contemporary tale is a look at a college campus and the people involved in it, including a philosophy teacher who struggles over the death of his wife and simultaneously grapples with a debt he owes to drug dealers; a student who thinks he may have found the girl of his dreams but isn't mature ' enough to leave behind getting wasted with his friends; a student determined to carry out a hateful act; and a teacher who struggles with his sexual preference. Some of the actors are fine in their roles, some are, well, less than fine. But standing out from among the performers is Jim Siokos as Tom Adams, an instructor who is in debt to drug suppliers. He's one of those rare actors who is so natural it's uncanny he's beyond good. Bluebox would bode well to use his talent again."

    2. Clark, Eric (2004-08-05). "Cutting edge: Busy UI freshman's film judged one of best at Hardacre festival". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Beck's latest release, "University Heights," will be screened this weekend at the 8th Annual Hardacre Film Festival. More than 70 films were submitted for consideration. ... A panel of five judges named "University Heights" one of the top films in the festival. The 96-minute film is about the emotional struggles of four characters on a college campus: a love-struck teenager with drug problems, an English teacher with sex issues, a philosophy teacher who owes thousands of dollars to a drug cartel and a racist student who realizes he hates himself more than anyone else. ... "University Heights" was shot digitally for $300 and features 55 actors and extras. Beck made the film with assistance from his filmmaking partner, Bryan Woods. Woods is a student at Scott Community College in Bettendorf and is also 19. The duo run their own production company called Bluebox Ltd."

    3. Burke, David (2005-12-07). "Bettendorf native wins film award from MTV. Bluebox Unlimited trailer captures judges' interest" (pages 1 and 2). Quad-City Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 27 August 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Beck entered the Bluebox film "University Heights" and Woods entered "Her Summer." ... In "University Heights," which was released in 2004, four characters' lives intertwine on a college campus. ... MTVu spokesman Jason Rzepka said. "The characters were intriguing and the trailer really made you wonder how the different strands of the story would develop. Of the trailers in the finalist round, 'University Heights' was the movie they most wanted to watch themselves.""

    4. Wiese, Darla M. (2005-12-07). "Dreams come true: Student filmmaking duo conquers MTVu contest". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Mr. Beck's "University Heights," follows the last days of four lives on a college campus and was created on a heftier $300 budget. Both trailers have won numerous awards in the past, so Mr. Woods and Mr. Beck were hopeful. ... "University Heights" was chosen for the grand prize by Hollywood directors John Singleton ("Boyz n the Hood"), Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen") Nicole Kas-sell ("The Woodsman") and online voters."

    5. Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-01-12). "UI freshman follows cinematic dreams. Student working on 13th film". Iowa City Press-Citizen. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Having already directed and produced a dozen short films, Scott Beck is now on his 13th, titled "University Heights." The Quad City native is shooting it primarily in Iowa City with friend Bryan Woods, 19. If all goes well, Beck will premiere the film in May. He plans to begin the heavy part of the shooting late this month. He finished the script in November and has since recruited a cast of more than 60 who will work for free."

    6. Kapler, Anne (2004-06-24). "Iowans' film opens Saturday". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Iowa film company Blue-box Limited will premiere its latest film, "University Heights," on Saturday at the Adler Theatre in Davenport. "University Heights" tells the story of four people on a college campus: a philosophy teacher who owes money to a drug cartel, a student consumed by racism and disgust, a teenager who hopes to fall in love but is troubled by drugs and an English teacher fighting his sexuality."

    7. Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-08-05). "Tipton's Hardacre Film Festival highlights independent films". Iowa City Press-Citizen. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The movie was shot at several locations in Iowa City, including the UI campus, particularly the English/Philosophy Building and Mayflower and Currier residence halls, The Mill Restaurant and Tim Brown Bottle, among others. The film caught the attention of organizers of the 2004 Microcinema Fest in Rapid City, S.D., and was shown there in July."

    8. McLaughlin, Mark (2004-06-25). "Q-C filmmakers' $300 effort to debut". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "'"University Heights' is an examination of life and the choices we make," said Mr. Beck, who wrote and directed the film. Mr. Woods served as assistant director and producer."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow University Heights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I stand corrected! I don't personally have access to Newspapers.com, and honestly I'm not sure I would've thought to check it even if I did. Thank you for informing me of an extremely helpful resource I'll need to look into in the future and for finding those sources. Given the clear demonstration of notability, I've withdrawn this nomination. Sock (tock talk) 15:57, 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. It's snowing. ❄️ ✗plicit 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Wiki[edit]

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

Repeated recreation of a non-notable topic, as proven from this Google search, this one, and this one (Further evidence of this at the article logs). Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. No reliable secondary sources about the subject, yet has been recreated several times. Liu1126 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT -- The subject is a non-notable fan website with no indication of notability, and it is highly doubtful it will become notable anytime soon. JTtheOG (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rip and read off the wiki's front page. Unless the creators can be bothered to actually write something else and source the wiki's notability, salt it. Nate • (chatter) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and throw away the key Self referential page that hasn't made any effort to be a page of substance. Salt it as well. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Wiki within wiki? Isn't that why they have Fandoms? Highly inadequate. dxneo (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it snow delete and salt. We have a wiki about the fandom wiki, but we do not talk about the wiki projects themselves. It goes against general guidelines. Besides, aren't any sources nor do I ever expect there to be. So yes, salt it. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt For completeness sake, checked Google Books, Google scholar, and TWL resources and found nothing covering this wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 04:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be notable. Cannot find any significant third party coverage that isn't other wikis or forum/social media posts. No one is talking about this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The only sources the article cites are SPS. No other secondary sources can be found; therefore, this article is not (and possibly never will be) notable. And what's a "salt"? TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Salting it prevents it from being created again. Its akin to salting a field so nothing will grow there in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are actually at least two secondary sources that contribute to notability and they're fine. I've added them to the article. The article is better now. But they don't contribute to notability to a sufficient degree.—Alalch E. 18:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT Of the 20 sources 9 of them are the wiki itself and 5 are other fan wikis.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:21, 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 Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#China. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Chunhua (ice hockey)[edit]

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

stub on an unnotable sportsperson. sourced to a database. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Collapsing comment:
    Extended content
    Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Weiner, Jay (2002-01-12). "China's Town - Blaine, with its sod farms and soccer fields, is the perfect home for China's Olympic hockey team". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22.

      The article notes: "Forward Liu Hongmei, the ubiquitous commercial Swoosh on her uniform's shoulder, passes crisply to linemates. ... said Liu Hongmei, China's top scorer, who can speak English. ... Back home in northeast China, it was 4 degrees Fahrenheit, and snowing. ... Captain Liu Hengmei, 29, the daughter of a security guard and a city maintenance worker, spent 2001 in Winnipeg, learning English."

    2. "China in tough to keep up with the pack". The Hockey News. 2002-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22 – via DiscountMags.

      The article notes: "Player to Watch: Center Liu Hongmei, 28, is the Chinese women’s team’s answer to Wayne Gretzky. She was named China’s female athlete of the year in 1994 after scoring eight goals in just five games at the World Championship."

    3. Fang, Xuefeng 房学峰 (2015-08-07). "冬奥史话：冰花的绽放之女子冰球的故事" [Winter Olympics History: The Blooming of Ice Flowers: The Story of Women's Ice Hockey] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22.

      The article notes: "1992年，中国女冰首次参加世锦赛，19人的名单是： ... 刘红梅 ... 中国女冰有几位得到国际冰球界高度评价的明星球员，例如在1992年到2002年间效力于国家队的刘红梅，曾代表国家队参赛46场，进球27个、助攻17个，得分是44分"

      From Google Translate: "In 1992, the Chinese women's ice hockey team participated in the World Championships for the first time. The list of 19 players was: ... Liu Hongmei ... The Chinese women's ice hockey team has several star players who are highly praised by the international ice hockey community. For example, Liu Hongmei, who played for the national team from 1992 to 2002, represented the national team in 46 games, scoring 27 goals, 17 assists, and scoring 44 points."

    4. Wang, Jingyu 王镜宇; Wang, Jianmin 王健民 (2002-02-21). "遭遇严冬盼春天--从冬奥会透视中国女子冰球现状" [Encountering a harsh winter and looking forward to spring--A look at the current situation of Chinese women's ice hockey from the perspective of the Winter Olympics] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22.

      The article notes: "昨天下午依靠老将刘红梅的1粒金球2：1艰难战胜哈萨克斯坦队之后，中国女子冰球队以1胜1平3负、排名第七的成绩结束了在盐湖城冬奥会上的旅程。... 老将刘红梅忍着肩伤的疼痛不知疲倦地在对方门前寻觅战机，"

      From Google Translate: "After defeating Kazakhstan 2:1 with a golden goal from veteran Liu Hongmei yesterday afternoon, the Chinese women's ice hockey team ended its journey at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics with 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses, ranking seventh. ... Veteran Liu Hongmei endured the pain of her shoulder injury and worked tirelessly to look for opportunities in front of the opponent's goal."

    5. "金球险胜哈萨克斯坦 我女冰获冬奥会第七" [Golden ball narrowly beat Kazakhstan, my female ice skater won seventh place in Winter Olympics]. Tianjin Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2002-02-21.

      The article notes: "终场前４６秒时，中国队名将刘红梅在裁判漏判对方一次越位的情况下犯规，结果使场上出现中国队以３人对５人的不利局面。... 加时赛一开始，中国队又在以少打多的情况下坚守了１分１４秒。挡住了对方的猛烈进攻后，刚刚从“球监”中被解放出来的刘红梅在加时赛进行到１分３９秒时近距离射门成功，使哈萨克斯坦队“突然死亡”。进球后刘红梅激动地扑倒在冰面上，洒下了热泪。赛后，这位在本届冬奥会上为中国队打入３球的老将说：“我当时的感情很复杂。本来我们不用打加时赛就能取胜。进球之后我想，终于赢了，实在是太不容易了。”"

      From Google Translate: "With 46 seconds before the end, the Chinese team's star player Liu Chunhua fouled when the referee missed an offside call. As a result, the Chinese team was in an unfavorable situation with 3 players against 5 players. ... At the beginning of the overtime, the Chinese team held on for 1 minute and 14 seconds with less and more. After blocking the opponent's fierce attack, Liu Hongmei, who had just been liberated from the "ball monitor", successfully shot from close range at 1 minute and 39 seconds into the overtime, causing the Kazakhstan team to "suddenly die". After the goal, Liu Hongmei threw herself on the ice in excitement and shed tears. After the game, the veteran who scored 3 goals for the Chinese team in this Winter Olympics said: "I had very complicated feelings at the time. Originally we could win without overtime. After scoring the goal, I thought, we finally won. Yes, it’s really not easy.”"

    6. "Golden Goal Gives China 1st Win and 7th Place in Olympic Ice Hockey. Veteran forward Liu Hongmei's golden goal in the over-time awarded the Chinese women a 2-1 victory over Kazakhstan and a seventh place finish in the ice hockey competition of the 19th Winter Olympic Games here on Tuesday". People's Daily. 2002-02-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22.

      The article notes: "Veteran forward Liu Hongmei's golden goal in the over-time awarded the Chinese women a 2-1 victory over Kazakhstan and a seventh place finish in the ice hockey competition of the 19th Winter Olympic Games here on Tuesday. ... Liu, who scored twice in China's 5-5 draw with Germany on Saturday, notched her third goal of the games with a quick slap shot amid a scramble before the Kazakhstan goal at 1:39 in the extra time, giving China the first victory in the eight-squad women's ice hockey tournament. ... the 30-year-old Liu said after the game. ... With 46 seconds remaining in the third period and China already short-handed, Liu was sent to the box for hooking ... who tied with Liu as China's top scorer at the Games, ..."

    7. "中国女冰急待援兵" [Chinese female ice hockey team urgently awaits reinforcements]. 中国消费者报 [China Consumer Daily] (in Chinese). 2003-02-13.

      The article notes: "盐湖城冬奥会后哈尔滨队中有包括守门员郭宏和锋线杀手刘红梅两位当家主力在内的5名选手退役，致使全队实力受损，"

      From Google Translate: "After the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, five players from the Harbin team, including goalkeeper Guo Hong and striker Liu Hongmei, retired, which damaged the team's strength."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Hongmei (simplified Chinese: 刘红梅; traditional Chinese: 劉紅梅), also known as Liu Chunhua, to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing and collapsing comment. These sources are for a different person, Liu Hongmei. I was confused by this edit, which had incorrectly added "刘红梅" to the lead but had correctly added "刘春华" (Liu Hongmei) to the infobox. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#China (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This is the only source I can find about the subject that provides more than a passing mention:
    1. Ci, Xin 慈鑫 (2015-04-13). "中国女子冰球输不掉的队魂" [The unbeatable team spirit of Chinese women’s ice hockey]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The article notes: "哈尔滨体育学院女子冰球队教练刘春华向记者表示。... 两个多月前，因为带队参加世界大学生冬季运动会，刘春华作为哈尔滨体育学院的教练，与中国女冰的这批年轻队员有过一次朝夕相处的密切接触，加上刘春华也是1998年中国女冰获得冬奥会第四名时的主力队员，她对现在这些年轻队员更有一种天然的亲近感。"

      From Google Translate: "Liu Chunhua, coach of the women's ice hockey team of Harbin Institute of Physical Education, told reporters... More than two months ago, because he led the team to participate in the World University Winter Games, Liu Chunhua, as the coach of Harbin Institute of Physical Education, had a close relationship with the Chinese women's ice hockey team. These young players on the ice have had close contact with each other day and night. In addition, Liu Chunhua was also a main player when the Chinese women's ice hockey team won fourth place in the Winter Olympics in 1998. She has a natural affinity with these young players now."

    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Chunhua (simplified Chinese: 刘春华; traditional Chinese: 劉春華) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.

    Cunard (talk) 11:32, 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 redirect‎ to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Tower Radio[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a network of radio stations due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates, where the stations of this network are listed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates: while that might be a relative surprise with regard to the network itself, four of its stations have their call signs redirect to this article as it stands and those would be valid {{R to list entry}} redirects to the 3ABN list (four others do have their own articles, at least for now). In any event, this article was created at the tail end of the era where we were a bit looser on broadcast station/network notability than we are today. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to 3ABN as above: there are quite a few of these articles for religious radio networks in the United States which, like this one, do not offer any rationale for inclusion. This may the first of several that needs to go. Flip Format (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, as not independently notable at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 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. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorpWatch[edit]

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

No sources on the article, no sources from a search. However, it is frequently used as a source, see Newspapers.com for example. Would like to see what others think. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:57, 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 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 14:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Clarity[edit]

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

Source review: 1 is forbes contributor, 3 and 6 are non-indpendent, 7 is probably unreliable, 5 does not have significant coverage. 4 and 2 written by Pratik Dattani, listed as a Huffington Post Contributor. A Google search doesn't provide any major sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:35, 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 merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burglar (character)[edit]

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

Non-notable character. I couldn't find non-trivial mentions of this guy anywhere. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:56, 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 keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CESRA[edit]

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

Bon courage (talk · contribs) prodded this with:

Reliant on itself for sourcing.

All current references are to CESRA or directory to conference proceedings linked to CESRA; I have not attempted to assess notability on my own. This doesn't mean that CESRA fails notability since WP:NEXIST, but deprodder Headbomb (talk · contribs) committed the WP:OLDSUBJECT fallacy: not a reason to delete, this is a 50+ y.o. professional associaton, obviously notable.

About 90% of this page was authored by page creator Sjyu1988 (talk · contribs), and the majority of edits by that user are to this article, with most of the rest being creations of redirects to towns and all remaining edits related to CESRA, including a deleted draft on the same topic, some non-free files, and these edits that got reverted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Major and well-established astronomy organization and sponsor of multiple high profile conferences, proceedings, etc. This is a big time failure of WP:BEFORE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: Please provide secondary sources that support notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this a recurring phenomenon on Wikipedia, where well-established modest groups just aren't treated in RS, so are not amenable to encyclopedic treatment? Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bon courage, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not our problem. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well indeed. Are there any independent "Histories of CESRA" or similar squirreled away somewhere? Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. "Show me secondary sources!" is not a valid argument for deleting a page for a clearly notable organization. If you can't be bothered to do the work, at least don't waste editors' time with pointless PRODs. Let's close this AfD, and work together on improving sources. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is you who needs to prove notability. None of the current sources do. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whom exactly are you referring to, when you say "you"? Is there a separate class of editors here who are tasked with supplying evidence, while the other class are sitting back, passively waiting for this evidence to materialize? This isn't Arbcom, and you are not heading a tribunal here. This is a joint effort by editors to improve the project. If you don't feel up to participating, at least respect the time and effort of those who do. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "You" are the people who wish for this article not to be deleted. The onus is on them. Cortador (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, if it's 'clearly notable' it would be easy to produce sources showing that. But the problem is - the lack of them, right? Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major organization - secondary sources almost always exists for such type of organizations. Meets WP:NORG. 64.135.238.133 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then produce them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One "keep" argument appears to be more like a personal attack, another is lacking in substance. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While CESRA no doubt is an established body that has facilitated a lot of academic and research activity, the organisation itself has attracted no significant coverage in independent sources that I can find (not even basic information, like how it was founded). It would be helpful if those saying this is clearly notable could show their working, because then I would be happy to change my !vote. Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The research of scientists associated with CESRA is clearly notable, as proven by a high number of publications. However, that doesn't make CESRA itself notable. I did a search for articles about CESRA, and virtually nothing came up. I'm happy to change my vote if porven wrong, but as of now, the discussion is textbook But there must be sources! Maybe the CESRA article should be kept nevertheless, but that would require a major revision of Wikipedia's notability criteria, and this discussion isn't the place for that.Cortador (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do in fact think there would be a case for considering distinct notability standards for professional, academic and standards organisations. But this is another discussion. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See this [20] as a brief description. More to come. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See page 930 [21], and this, how they were an off-shoot of the other astronomy group and became official [22]. I think with that description and the literally hundreds of mentions and conference abstracts published over the last 50 yrs, notability can be established. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, I think that's enough (just) for notability, even if the mentions in conference abstracts aren't. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this is just enough to justify the article. I changed my vote accordingly.
      • The 1972 one is authored by Fokker. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This gives further context: https://eas.unige.ch/newsletter/eas_newsletter-6.pdf Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find the basic information that tells me that it was formed in 1970 and held a joint meeting with JOSO in 1974 (Brandt & Mattig, p. 139), and not in sources by Kontar or Fokker. Unsurprisingly, it was in a book on astronomy organizations. Perhaps that's the sort of place to look. Zwaan 1974, p. 930 does flesh that out a bit, and this gets us to 1974, at least. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
references
  • Brandt, Peter; Mattig, Wolfgang (2012). "The history of the Joint Organization for Solar Observations (JOSO)". In Heck, Andre (ed.). Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 135–152. ISBN 9789401006064.
  • Zwaan, Cornelis (May 1974). "Cooperation in solar Astronomy in Europe". Memorie della Società Astronomia Italiana. 45: 929–933. Bibcode:1974MmSAI..45..929Z.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Clarke (snooker player)[edit]

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

The only source currently in the article is a blacklisted one. My WP:BEFORE search of web and newspapers.com sources found lots of passing mentions of results and of a disciplinary incident in 1999, but nothing that I considered really contributed to notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:31, 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Kingdom[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone can show that this got independent coverage, it doesn't need its own article. Even if someone does, this can likely be included in the Doctor Who article under spin-offs or another appropriate section.Cortador (talk) 12:55, 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 no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaws in popular culture[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR. It seems to fail WP:GNG as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There does seem to be some coverage about this topic, as seen in [[23]] and [[24]]. If this article is kept, it will need a major rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is information on the topic, clearly needs much fleshing out and more citations. I'd love to help rewrite. Should I disclose a COI here... I love chainsaws and both their uses and bad physics in pop culture!Autoshotdc (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Listicles aren't enough, as I've learned in a recent AfD for a list of director cameos. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. BD2412 T 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NLIST and GNG (take your pick). Article is a series of listicles with WP:OR commentary. As a list it fails NLIST, there are not WP:RS showing this is discussed as a group. As an article, it fails GNG with no WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. If kept, the WP:OR needs to be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  01:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this poorly written, poorly sourced attempt at a list that fails NLIST and GNG. Also, inclusion criteria are not as straightforward as one might expect. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those advocating keeping the article could list some sources that strengthen their argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Ultimate History Horror Movie Chainsaws".

      The article notes: "Because of their immediate association with Tobe Hopper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, an indisputable horror classic, chainsaws have been a fixture of the genre, spanning from Leatherface to Ash Williams to Dead Rising. But motorized saws are also a uniquely American trope; other nations who specialize in scares, like England and Japan, don’t carry the baggage of Westward expansion. Away from the bustle of cities, the ghosts of native genocides haunt the rural American wilds like boogeymen. No tools symbolize the expansion spirit greater than axes and saws, but their modern incarnations have become monstrous."

    2. "The 12 Most Memorable Appearances Of Chainsaws In Video Games".

      The article notes: "Gears of War / The reason for this very list. As we mentioned in the intro, the Gears chainsaw bayonet has become a modern classic. It has cemented the series into pop culture history. Still, it’s not the best chainsaw in video games ever. We come on, you already know the answer. You don’t even have to wonder. "

    3. "A man, a plan, a chainsaw: How a power tool took center stage in Argentina's presidential race".

      The article notes: "Finchelstein agrees most of Milei’s supporters will view the chainsaw metaphorically, but a fraction may not. Asked about the potential for the charged-up rhetoric to incite violence, Milei’s campaign said the chainsaw is merely a symbol. "

    4. "Shack Chat: What's your favorite video game chainsaw?".

      The article notes: "If you’re going to rip and tear, why not do it with fashion and flair? Why punch things when you can render them into tiny little bits with a chainsaw? The original Doom answered those questions way back in the early 90s and has continued that fine tradition since then. Getting the chainsaw made a gory experience even better in what was already a pretty damn violent game for the time. Even today the chainsaw still finds its way into the modern Doom franchise. Although I honestly don’t find the new version as enjoyable as the original as it’s more of a quick-time kill animation nowadays. Still, we’ll always have our precious memories of the original, old-school chainsaw and all the things we turned into meaty chunks with it."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chainsaws in popular culture to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ample coverage has been found proving this article meets the general notability requirements. Dream Focus 02:03, 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Creed of the Kromon[edit]

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

Lack of SIGCOV for this Big Finish Doctor Who production. One can find Doctor Who fan blogs with reviews, but I don't see sigcov in reliable sources, and therefore this fails the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:10, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Singhal[edit]

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

Article about a lesser-known entrepreneur, with routine/promotional sources cited as sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article author appears to be a prolific creator of these things. Fermiboson (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wholly promotional and the sources say so. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly non-notable. Sources are two very obvious press releases, a business directory listing, and an article about an entirely different person which was written by the subject. Created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and very likely for undisclosed compensation given that case's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 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 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. Noting that the subject of the previous AFD is different from this one. ✗plicit 12:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David McDonnell[edit]

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

Currently unsourced BLP. I did not nominate for BLPPROD as there are sources that confirm the subject's existence, but my searches of the web and of newspapers.com did not identify any coverage that would help demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Ireland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I mentioned previously that if the consensus should favour deletion, I'd happily vote that way in future discussions of a similar nature - David McDonnell's case is similar, and I haven't been able to find anything to the effect that he passes GNG either, so that's fair enough. The only mitigating factor might be that he has compiled a maximum break in professional play, but there again, that's hardly a notable achievement these days! Montgomery15 (talk) 14:18, 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 List of Ace Attorney characters#Pearl Fey. ✗plicit 12:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Fey[edit]

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

Besides the one Game Informer article, shown here, I am not convinced that Pearl Fey is notable and would have to agree with Kung Fu Man on this one. I'd suggest she be merged to the character list, but she is not sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article at this time and is only a minor character who pops up in select games, compared to Maya. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect This character article is written by TotalTruthTeller24 and edited by several of their socks, including the !vote just above. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The Game Informer source is a good start, but there has to be a goalpost here, and having researched the topic myself, I found little. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:57, 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 redirect‎ to Gabriel & Dresden. ✗plicit 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Dresden (album)[edit]

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

Unsure of the reliability of most of these sources (aside from the obvious unreliable ones like Discogs and the Amazon review), but they don't seem very promising. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Their second album, The Only Road (album) has an article as well. That one looks much more comprehensively researched. Perhaps this article just needs some additional work. MannyMammal (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we discussing the other album on this AfD?
    Note that: Notability of the performers (and of their previous works) has nothing to do with that of this subject. dxneo (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to the performer(s): Cannot find anything in RS, only Discog and primary sources. Please ping me if sources are presented. dxneo (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to say above but I also support redirecting. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gabriel & Dresden per above. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:41, 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. ✗plicit 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross Drive, Canberra[edit]

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

Had PROD removed. Fails WP:GEOROAD. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010. ☺ It's a major road, but it's a largely undocumented major road. The only way for readers to verify things like the speed limits is to go to the road. There are no sources in the article, and although I can turn up generalities about road construction in the A.C.T., I cannot turn up specifics down to this level of detail of individual roads. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons already outlined. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Bduke (talk) 04:03, 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 15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kodi Medeiros[edit]

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

Non-notable career Minor League baseball player. Nearly all sources are trivial mentions of transactions or statistics; Wikipedia is not a baseball fansite (where an article like this might belong). Anonymous Contributor 012786 (talk) 10:21, 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 and SALT. There is no need to draftify as there's an existing draft which can be improved and run through AfC. Star Mississippi 02:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Lino[edit]

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

It wasn't even a month after consensus at the last AfD discussion led to the article being draftified‎ that it got pushed back into mainspace. Still WP:TOOSOON. Still fails WP:GNG.

If the result of this discussion is a delete again, can I suggest that Draft:Franco Lino also be deleted in order to prevent a repeat of this behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 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 Nigel Marven#Filmography. Star Mississippi 02:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Family & Other Turkeys with Nigel Marven[edit]

My Family & Other Turkeys with Nigel Marven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Unlikely that a 1 hour documentary on British TV meets the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly expand the article, if it is necessary. Blogorgonopsid (talk) 23.36, 22 November 2023 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you think it meets the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:03, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rock Cafe locations[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR, we are not the yellow pages or a travel directory. Fram (talk) 08:35, 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 keep‎. A discussion to move can be had outside of this deletion debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myōjinyama[edit]

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

It seems to exist, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GEOLAND, WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps move. It's a 1290m mountain; based on the bluelinks at List of mountains and hills of Japan by height, it appears that the general consensus is that such mountains are notable. The real name is "Teppogi-no-atama" or "Teppoginoatama" (the Japanese Wikipedia page is at that name), and the current English title could be mistaken for Mount Myōjin although the Japanese names are different (-yama vs -dake, but both could be translated as "Mount"). English sources using "Teppogi-no-atama" and discussing the place in some detail include this from Japan Today and this from Timeout. Searching for the Japanese name 鉄砲木ノ頭 yields lots of hits on both Google Books and Google News, e.g. several pages of coverage in both this book and this book which are more detailed and less associated with paid tours. Dekimasuよ! 01:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed by Dekimasu. DCsansei (talk) 13:53, 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: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

山州[edit]

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

This page has only one valid entry per MOS:DABRED and should be redirected to Yamashiro Province per WP:PRIMARYRED. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/山州 participants and closer: Primium (talk · contribs), Bkonrad (talk · contribs), Folly Mox (talk · contribs), and Hey man im josh (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly "Bad AfD" level, but the nominator clearly didn't click through to any of the "See also" links, all of which are 山州. See Special:Diff/1183937267. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) oh also Speedy Keep and didn't we just do this.[reply]
    Of course I did. It's you who clearly don't understand the relationship between Chinese characters and their transliteration. The only entry in Sanshu transliterated from 山州 is exactly Yamashiro Province. And the only entry in Shan Prefecture transliterated from 山州 was a red link I just removed per WP:DABRED here. As for Shanzhou, it's obviously transliterated from 陕州 as opposed to 山州. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good revert. You're right: I read them in my head without the tones, and edited while too sleepy to think clearly again. Folly Mox (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, the format you used in Special:Diff/1183937267 assigned Yamashiro Province with the primary topic per MOS:DAB, in which case 山州 should still be redirected to Yamashiro Province. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep: seems clear that if there is no disambiguation to be done, this page is not needed. But someone has found a second reading of 山州, so there is disambiguation to be done. But all the other irrelevant stuff should be deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and reinstate the removed information) - MOS:DABRED isn't for removing information, it's for removing red links in disambiguation pages. "Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader [...] will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term." -- Primium (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the information that you think should belong, and its relationship to the article title, viz. 山州 ? There is a rationale for having redirects in WP:en for Chinese characters, in particular that a reader of Japanese (for example, like me) can look up a placename in China, without knowing the Chinese reading of the characters. But I can see no purpose in having links from one set of Chinese characters to a different set of Chinese characters. In the Sanshu disambiguation page there are two items including 山州: one goes to the actual article Yamashiro Province, the other comes back to this disambiguation page. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:DABRED clarifies the condition under which the entry of non-extant article could be kept, while doesn't mean that it has to. Will you insert the red link to an article to give it a related blue link even if the entry is added for spamming? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created Shān Prefecture, which is discussed extensively in this source:
    1. Tang, Ren (1829). 慶遠府(廣西)志: 20卷, 卷首 : 1卷 [Chronicles of Qingyuan Prefecture (Guangxi): 20 volumes, first volume: 1 volume] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Google Books.
    There are now two topics that "山州" can refer to:
    1. Yamashiro Province, abbreviated name was following Sanshū (山州), province of Japan located in what is today Kyoto Prefecture
    2. Shān Prefecture, a prefecture between the 6th and 7th centuries in modern Thanh Hóa, Vietnam and Guangxi, China
    Cunard (talk) 11:24, 12 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! 07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's good to validate a entry from creation of a stub. It remains to decide if the proposed target could be the primary topic, in which condition WP:ONEOTHER applies and a hatnote at the top of Yamashiro Province will suffice to replace this dab page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How would a hatnote work? It seems to me that while redirects from Chinese characters (山州 in this case) are useful, a hatnote would be unnecessarily confusing to the ordinary reader, who would not recognise this reference to a rare variant name. Better to have a redirect page. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with either way after creation of the stub. Now that you prefer keeping the disambiguation page, I'm withdrawing my nomination, as all the votes here are keep now. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unfortunately, I don't see any development of this discussion since the last relisting. Right now, it looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (moving this below the line...) Keep: But someone has found a second reading of 山州, so there is disambiguation to be done. But all the other irrelevant stuff should be deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:54, 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 no consensus‎. No prejudice to an immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Ali[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. References on the page and in a WP:BEFORE found nothing in-depth, fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or talk about his company. I did find this which isn't real flattering but still does not add up with others for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn:, it isn't about where the person is from, but where the publication is from. And, I think that section needs updating as it applies to other countries as well. Many publications listed in that guideline do not discriminate based on nationality as I have seen people from the United States with references from those publications. It all comes down to analysis of each source. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that online business media (among others) worldwide have problems of advertorialism and should be treated with healthy doses of skepticism; however, with NEWSORGINDIA I think best not to apply the specific circumstances that arose in one country to another. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So none of the sources used are useful then. We can't keep the article if that's the case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of my statement is the need for specific source analysis, nothing more. In the absence of that, there's only assertions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Above article has 10 solid newspaper references now with in-depth coverage on Sunny Ali. I added 2 more categories and also improved the existing references. In my view, it meets WP:GNG...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the references were improved as none were added that I can see. Can you point out the specific references out of the "10" which are in-depth and do not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I would be glad to have another look. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. I am afraid we are risking getting stuck on WP:NEWSORGINDIA here and NOT show due respect to the thousands and thousands of legitimate newspapers both in India and Pakistan in business for many many decades!!! Let us leave it to the Wikipedia community to decide which sources are unreliable and can not be used as references on Wikipedia.
The above article already has 10 newspaper references that are considered 'reliable sources' per WP:PKRS. I ask the nominator to please take another look...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was already decided by the Wikipedia "which sources are unreliable and can not be used as references." This is why NEWSORGINDIA exists. It is something that was decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Also, no one said the references are not from "legitimate newspapers." That is not the purpose of NEWSORGINDIA. According to that guideline, we should be careful about blindly accepting references from legitimate newspapers and look deeper into each one. For example, The Express Tribune appears to be a reliable source ("legitimate newspapers" as you say). So we assume good faith (not blind faith) that the references from this publication are good. However, NEWSORGINDIA suggests looking deeper so while looking at this The Express Tribune reference used on the Wikipedia page for Sunny Ali, you can see that the byline is "Tech Desk" (not a staff writer which indicates it is regurgitation of a press release or paid content). An online search also shows this reference which is similar in tone (as if a press release) and marked as a "sponsored post" (also posted exactly one day apart). These are all signs that this particular reference from The Express Tribune is a sponsored post and should not be considered for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 4 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! 06:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only source #4 is listed as reliable per sourcebot, and it's an interview. The rest appear to be non-RS and I can't find much else we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I remain concerned about the misapplication of NEWSORGINDIA as if a wave at a completely different country's media implicates all media in Pakistan, this is a promo piece that mostly regurgitates PR (NEWSORGINDIA doesn't allow one to draw that conclusion given there's no overlapping of sources). Nevertheless, this August 2023 RS piece "Tears of a get-rich-quick guru" offers an extensive and detailed analytical assessment of Ali. I'm on the fence - there's a possible case for TNT; although judicious editing and correct use of sourcing could possibly fix this. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For NEWSORGINDIA, I consider this to apply to the entire Indian subcontinent. As far as the sourcing, I would agree with your assessment of Rest of World piece you linked to being extensive and detailed and helps establish notability, assuming that publication is considered a reliable source. That would make a single source assuming other would agree with us. Here is an evaluation of the other sourcing on the page and unfortunately do not see anything in-depth that would allow for page cleanup. There is overlapping of sources as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The Express Tribune, While this shows a byline, the article is an interview. The article is about his advice to youth. There are only four sentences “about him” in the entire article.
2. The Express Tribune, Byline on this is “Tech Desk” which indicates either churnalism or paid media. It is also about the company where he is CEO, not about him.
3. Business Recorder, churnalism and about the company. Sunny Ali gives a quote but there is nothing about him in the reference.
4. Aurora, Interview with the subject. Simple Q&A with no depth about the subject. Cannot be used to establish notability.
5. Rest of World, A single sentence saying he runs a Facebook group that offers paid ecommerce training.
6. The Express Tribune, reference is churnalism or paid as it shows a byline of “Our Correspondent” which a deeper search reveals it is based on this press release.
7. Daily Times, link times out so I cannot view the source.
8. Associated Press of Pakistan, quote from the subject, not “about” the subject. Also churnalism as this is printed in a few other publications such as here and here.
9. PT Profit, more quotes and advise from Sunny Ali, but not “about” Sunny Ali.
10. Daily Times, link times out so I cannot access it, but based on the title and the other sources in this assessment, I am going to assume it is more quotes from the subject since the headline is not about him.
11. Phone World, subject isn’t even mentioned in this reference.
12. Nation, written by a business partner of Ali and is basically a glowing recommendation of Ali. Nothing I would consider independent.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My concern still remains that the nominator shows a tendency to stretch things and use a broad brush. For example, WP:NEWSORGINDIA does not say anywhere that it applies to the entire Indian subcontinent, yet the nominator assumes it does! He's trashing most of the existing newspaper references as suspects for paid journalism. Where is the clear evidence that they are? In my view, promotional content in the article can be deleted or modified. How can I function as a Wikipedia editor if I start treating all the newspapers as suspects? ...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can take your concerns to ANI if you feel I am in the wrong. However, you continue to assert as if I have a bias against Indian news publications which is not the case. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use some more new voices/opinions here. And rather than going after other editors, please engage with the source analysis that has been provided. Just stating notability exists isn't as persuasive as pointing to sources that help establish SIGCOV. Being vague or getting personal never helps in an AFD discussion, focusing on the quality of sources does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The person is notable, the article has 10 sources and the nominator does not give an extensive reason for the nomination.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a policy or guideline that says something is notable if it has 10 sources. Also, "extensive" is subjective. Reasoning was given above so feel free to refute it using policy-based reasoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Went back and took another good look at the article. Cleaned up and removed some promotional content. Sunny Ali and his company have received significant coverage in reliable sources from many major English-language newspapers of Pakistan which is the requirement for WP:GNG. All of the newspaper articles address Sunny Ali and his company directly and in detail which is the requirement for WP:SIGCOV...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:06, 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 David Range. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hordern Gap[edit]

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

Another place in uninhabited Antarctica which only exists on a map and is only referenced to a database/map. Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable. JMWt (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if this wasn't notable, the information would be merged Mount Coates, Mount Hordern or the David Range. If the USGS has documented these features then we should too, it's just basic common sense to merge information into parent articles rather than obliterating any mention of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. We have notability criteria for a reason, otherwise all features which exist on any map anywhere in the world would be notable. JMWt (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is wide consensus on here that geographical features documented by government institutions are considered notable though. It's just using basic common sense to merge the information which you seem to lack. Wikipedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features, whether anybody is living in these places or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. WP:GEONATURAL. Please stop telling me how to think and use "common sense". JMWt (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • This appears to be an attempt to extend the (frankly, bad) automatic notability conferred by GEOLAND on to uninhabited places which, being uninhabited, do not fall within GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            No it isn't. But you would find if you proposed at the village pump to delete all of these stubs you wouln't be successful and would find that many editors don't have a problem with articles on geographical features which are documented in government sources. With these it's more a case of finding the best way to present the information. I would support a merger of the ones which can't be expanded into parent articles. If there are concerns about the reliability of the source, then that's an issue to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there's a strong consensus that is quite the opposite, since the GNIS mess and the mass article creators. We know your views on this Dr. Blofeld, but after all of the kerfuffle you should really recognize that you don't speak for a consensus. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GEONATURAL for natural feature we need sufficient sourcing to be able to write an encyclopaedia article. Multiple sources are needed to sustain an encyclopedia article, in this case we have only one source (GNIS). Folding in sub-features that are also sourced to GNIS gets us no closer to notability, not least because notability is not inherited. WP:BEFORE has to be proportionate to the amount of effort expended to write the article in the first place, which in this case was practically zero since this article was apparently created by bot or bot-like editing (190 articles were created by Dr. Blofeld on the same day as this one). FOARP (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A search on "Hordern Gap" 1962 shows various sources. The gap was used, photographed and discussed by the 1957, 1958 and 1962–63 expeditions. Any traveller in this part of the Antarctic will be interested in what Wikipedia has to say. It passes WP:GEONATURAL. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all can Google. Unless you actually have sources for us to discuss, then you cannot possibly !vote that WP:GEONATURAL has been met. JMWt (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's start with Alberts 1995, p. 343 then. It tells us who mapped this, where it is, some expeditions that passed through it, and who named it and why. Then there's the original 1965 ANARE report. An excellent case that this is encyclopaedic is that it is in another encyclopaedia, namely Stewart 1990, p. 470. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alberts, Fred G. (1995). "Hordern Gap". Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2nd ed.). National Science Foundation.
        • Stewart, John (1990). "Hordern Gap". Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. McFarland. ISBN 9780899505978.
        • we know there was a scientific trip. That's not a sign in itself that a geographical feature it described very briefly was notable. It was an expedition in places where likely nobody had been before and few since - they named lots of things. And we don't normally take notability from other encyclopedias. JMWt (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, things being in other encyclopaedias and so should be in this encyclopaedia has been a fairly strong argument since somewhere around 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, but the entry I can read is a short-single-paragraph entry, not really SIGCOV. I can't see the Stewart reference but if it's the same level of coverage I'm not seeing how WP:GEONATURAL is met. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think so. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.

              You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons. And we have a secondary encyclopedia.

              So at best you are offering two sources, of which only one is really a secondary source. Which isn't enough for inclusion.

              In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates. If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

              • I'm right because I was there at the time, and I've made the it's-encyclopaedic-because-it-is-in-other-encyclopaedias-and-constructing-a-both-generalist-and-specialist-encyclopaedia-is-what-we're-about argument at AFD. ☺

                I don't think that you know what a primary source is. It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names. Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway. There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability. Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it. Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions. Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source. It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by "collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources".

                And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias. Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading. Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed. It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.

                Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, GNIS-based stuff is entirely zappable, in my view. The GNIS is wholly unreliable except for coördiates, and not even for them some of the time. Its process is quite broken. Starting again without the GNIS involvement is the best course of action. This is only tempered here in that the GNIS text has been copied almost word for word from the 1965 ANARE report, Horden Gap from the entry on page 68 and Gap Nunatak from the entry on page 56. We simply need to cite the actual report, and things like the Alberts and Stewart encyclopaedias, which were actually listed first in Britannica's bibliography for Antartica for a couple of decades and are obviously the sources to go to (although there have been two more encyclopaedias since, that Google Books doesn't know about), instead of the bloody GNIS. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the report itself is of an expedition, no? It's a primary source JMWt (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added cite links to the other encyclopedia, and a bit about the 1962–63 expedition. I did not remove the GNIS links. GNIS is not always accurate, but usually gets coordinates right. I agree with Uncle G that if a reputable encyclopedia like Geographic Names of the Antarctic thinks a topic deserves a paragraph or so, that is a good reason to assume the topic deserves a Wikipedia article. We have plenty of room. To JMWt's point, a report by the leader of an expedition would be a primary source for an article on the expedition, but a valid secondary source for things the expedition found. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Psst, Aymatth2! That book is actually available in toto and we don't need Google Books's limited partial previews for it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Ah so! I fixed the source definition in the article to point to the pdf version. So since this encyclopedia is published by the United States government, it is in the public domain, and could (with suitable attribution) be copied into Wikipedia, starting wiith

          Aagaard Glacier 66°46'S, 64°31'W Glacier 8 mi long, which lies close E of Gould Glacier and flows in a southerly direction into Mill Inlet, on the E coast of Graham Land. Charted by the FIDS and photographed from the air by the RARE during December 1947. Named by the FIDS for Bjarne Aagaard, Norwegian authority on Antarctic whaling and exploration. Not: Glaciar Alderete.

          and ending with

          Zykov Island 66°32'S, 93°01'E Small island lying between Fulmar Island and Buromskiy Island in the Haswell Islands. Discovered and first mapped by the AAE under Mawson, 1911-14. Remapped by the Soviet expedition of 1956, which named it for Ye. Zykov, a student navigator who lost his life in the Antarctic in 1957.

          Very interesting. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think we should be simply copying directories directly into Wikipedia, neither GNIS nor this one. We're supposed to write encyclopaedia articles, which are essentially summaries of what secondary sources say on the subject. WP:GEONATURAL explicitly backs up the idea that the articles we are aiming to write are encyclopaedia articles and not some other form of article, even when it comes to natural features ("The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" - emphasis added). These listings are not encyclopaedia articles but instead geographical dictionary entries, and we should not create articles that simply copies of them.
          No objection to using it as a source, of course. Also no objection to copying it to Wikisource. However, to sustain notability we need more than a brief mention. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the sources above, this is my opinion fwiw. Antarctica is essentially a unique place for two reasons: first it has essentially zero human population and second it is disputed territory. The sources used above are a) an exploratory report funded by one country making a claim to territory in uninhabited land and b) an encyclopedia which collates those named features.
In my opinion, the first is clearly unusable for notability. Otherwise every national report naming features anywhere in the world would be notable. Which is the same as saying every feature on every map produced by an official national body is notable. Which is ridiculous.
The second might be considered to be secondary and independent (laying aside the issue of whether there is "substantial" coverage on the pages noted above). But the fact that the territory is uninhabited and in dispute seems highly relevant - a source simply listing features on disputed land as determined by one party to the dispute would/should not be considered notable in my opinion.
Finally I think we have to seriously question the whole concept of notability and how it applies to the uninhabited continent. Other than in encyclopedic lists of names of features which seek for completeness, who has noted these minor features? Other than a handful of scientists, nobody. There are no books or newspaper articles or anything which cover these things in substantial depth because why would there be? JMWt (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break1[edit]

  • Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer, with lists of features, some of which have their own article. WP:GEONATURAL says an article may be suitable if there is information beyond statistics and coordinates: enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition. It is irrelevant whether anyone lives there, whether it is in disputed territory, and how mny people are interested in it. A crater on the moon may have an article if there is enough to be said about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's all your opinion. I don't believe that the encyclopedia you cite meets the standard of substantial coverage - but even if it does, we need multiple sources - usually 3 WP:3REFS - which we simply don't have for an unimportant geographical feature on an uninhabited continent. The fact that one country in a territorial dispute has named multiple features doesn't give notability in itself, particularly when that naming has been roundly ignored by everyone else in every possible form of published media.
    Comparisons with the moon are interesting - because of course there are many named features on the moon. But there the features are a) very large and b) referred to repeatedly in many sources. The fact that they have been named and exist is not enough.
    Also: WP:NOTMIRROR "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: 3 Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording." and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
    JMWt (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer" - a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. WP:GEONATURAL on the other hand says explicitly that our goal is to write encyclopaedia articles, which are necessarily more in-depth than a mere gazetteer entry, or even list of gazetteer entries.
    "The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition" - I disagree. The entries in that book are geographical dictionary entries, not encyclopaedic coverage, which is essentially a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. Wikipedia is both not a dictionary and not a directory, but these listings of features would be essentially akin to dictionary/directory content.
    In other areas of Wikipedia (books, music, films, biographies etc.) we have not generally taken this kind of short-paragraph coverage as significant coverage of the topic. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazeteer. That is, special rules apply to geographical articles. The information on geographical items may be presented in container articles, perhaps in list form, or in stand-alone articles. The main consideration in choosing the format is how much reliable information is available. In this case, there is enough to warrant the stand-alone format. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know more about where this quote comes from because WP:5P1 says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - which isn't the same as what you quoted. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes from the essay WP:GAZETTEER. Of course there is also the essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER, which says:
Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a "indiscriminate collection of information", "dictionary", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a "geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
The idea that Wikipedia is a gazetteer is not something that has ever been confirmed by any consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Every time it has been discussed no such conclusion has been reached. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the essay quoted above was written by the person who’s quoting it. As is clearly stated, it has not necessarily been vetted by the community. Djflem (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is great, because the essay that says the thing I'm responding to is equally also not vetted by the community. FOARP (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What’s great about presenting a block quote in green lettering when you’re quoting yourself? Djflem (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break2[edit]

FOARP Why not open an RFC to see what the community generally thinks about having articles on verifiable geo landmarks which are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nobody wants stubs, but I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose. I fully agree with you on the concept of "inherent notability", I hate that term too, but the original objective of Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge". We are worse off not having any mention of these features than we are having them, even as stubs. The issue that that we shouldn't really be copying from this resource, and the information is poorly presented in masses of different articles at an inconvenience to our readers. Merging the scraps of information we have to parent articles which cannot be disputed to be notable is the way to go. I would actually support a bot which nukes many of the Antarctica stubs and merges the information we have into readable prose in more notable parent articles which may be stubs or undeveloped too, but I know the community wouldn't support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning open a RfC after the current AfDs have closed. Happy to cooperate with others here on the wording of a proposal and counter-proposal. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose". As encyclopaedia article subjects, yes. Not as mere single-sentence entries, which are not encyclopaedia articles. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A gazetteer often combines list and text format. An article like List of lakes in Foo County might have some general text on hydrography of the county followed by an alphabetic list giving name, coordinates, elevation and area. Some of the lake names would have links to articles giving more detail. In this case, the topic has too much verifiable detail to be stuffed into a list entry, which would look terrible on a phone. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This section should have been a level 4 header like the previous one, not a level 3, which is the header level of the entire AfD discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to David Range where I suspect more of these neighbouring Antarctic geographic features will end up after further AfDs if what constitutes notability for these geo features cannot be agreed upon. Even with the Hordern Gap paragraph, the article is borderline and would still be better merged. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break4[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly disagreement about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability, but in addition to further analyses of these, it would be helpful if participants could specifically address the question of keeping vs merging, and of merging vs deletion. I started writing out a "no consensus" closure, but given the effort put in here I'm hopeful that further participation can resolve this. My personal opinion is that no broader RfC is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm OK with redirecting to David Range, but prefer deletion. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - still Delete as no reasons given for !keep in my opinion. Whilst I appreciate the efforts of the closers, I do not agree with the assertion that an RfC is not needed. Either we clarify or we continue having these arguments for hundreds of similar pages. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are supposed to be discussions where one's views are put forward; not arguments. FOARP is working through Polish GEONAME stubs and has sought compromise by offering up redirects in many cases. The discussions, though limited in number of contributors, are amicable and I've observed that both "sides" respect each other and are genuinely seeking consensus. It would likely be beneficial if a similar approach is adopted for Antarctic GEO stubs. Rupples (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, perhaps, we need a wider discussion. Three participants in this discussion think it is a worthwhile thing to do, I don’t know how or why you think this is somehow not “genuinely seeking consensus”, in fact the opposite is true - we have clearly reached a sincere difference of opinion and seek the venue where the wider consensus can be established JMWt (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment isn't about starting a RfC of which I hold no view, it's about considering alternatives to deletion and sometimes working towards some sort of compromise by agreeing to a redirect or merge. Rupples (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then I misunderstood your comment. I don’t see how a redirect is helpful - who exactly is going to be using the search term? And there is virtually nothing to merge other than the coordinates, which is essentially useless information about, let’s not forget, a gap between two unimportant mountains in a large range of mountains in the uninhabited continent. Merging will eventually lead to higher level pages that retain coordinates and no other information. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we agree (apart from the noninator) that the information should or at least could be held somewhere in Wikipedia. With this feature, and almost all features named in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, there is more information than just coordinates. WP:GEONATURAL suggests that if there is not enough for a stand-alone article, information on a feature can be held in a parent article. Rupples suggests the parent could be David Range.
If a redirect points to an anchor in front of a section on the feature within the parent article, the effect is much the same as with a stand-alone article. The user enters the feature name and is taken to text that describes it. A benefit of the merge approach is that the user sees context and related features, and so is encouraged to browse. A drawback is that there may be more than one possible parent, so there may be a risk of forking.
Perhaps we should refer this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica, so we can get a consistent approach to these features. I would be inclined to say that:
1) If the feature is in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it should have a section or article. If it is not in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it probably does not belong.
2) If the available text would easily fit on a phone screen, and there are no obvious sources for expansion, it should be merged to a section in a parent.
3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...
4) links from possible parents to the parent section that holds the text are encouraged, and will help avoid forking.
Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My honest view is that locations in Antarctica, along with sub-sea formations (which includes rocks), belong in the same category as astronomical features (i.e., they are features that have never conceivably been inhabited that are highly unlikely to generate coverage and should not have any presumption of notability) and should be handled the same. I don't think there is any need to redirect them and we are kidding ourselves by thinking that people find these redirects useful, as well as greatly complicating the problem of cleaning up failing article by turning every AFD into a hunt for redirects/merges that are typically quite forced. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am less anthropocentric. Inclusion of articles on people or their works must be subject to proof of notability, given the risk of abuse. Even with these, projects may define special criteria for politicians, athletes, populated places, and so on, allowing articles on topics that may not pass WP:GNG. With natural or scientific topics, there is far less risk of abuse, and projects often define special criteria such as WP:GEONATURAL. These topics may only be of interest to a limited audience, but there is plenty of room in Wikipedia. I suspect that more readers will be interested in natural features of Antarctica, which are associated with hardy explorers, than in articles on obscure beetles or minerals. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we’ve noted above, these articles were rapidly created by importing a dataset. There is very little chance that anyone would find them interesting because we lack the data to say anything interesting about them. It’s hardly “anthropocentric” to say that some geographical entities lack sources and therefore lack notability. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I’d add to this that pretty much the only sources of the names of the features are a) expeditions b) a gazeteer of geographic names and c) national mapping agencies - then pretty much the only way that a reader on en.wiki would know to search for them would be if they’d already read those (most likely c) and have already seen 90-100% of all the information that exists and is likely to exist on en.wiki
Note that I accept that there are features in Antarctica where there is more to say, for example where there are research stations or big colonies of penguins. I’m only talking about the geological/geographical features where there is essentially nothing to say other than they exist and have been named. JMWt (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this quote from Aymatth2 above “3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...”
I submit that this makes no logical sense. Basically we are saying that on the page for Framnes Mountains which is a big range of mountains there’s this other range called the David Range (which is non-notable and we have little to say about it) and two of the non-notable peaks within that range are Mount Coates and Mount Hordern (nothing much to say about them) and between them is a gap, but that’s also not notable and we have little to say about it. We’d end up with fractal sections on the page of cascading non-notable unimportance right down to “and in this non-notable bay, around the corner of this non-notable headland lies a non-notable island. A couple of miles away is this non-notable rock.” JMWt (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEONATURAL is the relevant guideline for information on natural geographic features, not WP:GNG. This AfD discussion is not the place to propose changes to WP:GEONATURAL. We should be concerned only with compliance of Hordern Gap,and perhaps of similar articles, with that guideline.
That said, a parent article for WP:GEONATURAL purposes will often describe a significant feature that also passes WP:GNG. The proposed David Range merge target certainly does. The description of David Range can obviously give detail on sub-features that are not themselves notable in the WP:GNG sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence the need for a RfC. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break 5[edit]

I pumped up David Range. It could use much more detail on climate, geology, exploration etc., but is now structured so it would be easy enough to merge in articles on the features. The more I read about this rich topic though, the more I feel it would be better to expand the feature articles, which mostly have plenty of sources for more material, and to leave the parent as a summary. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right about the individual features but redirects at least leave open the possibility for future expansion. Good work on David Range, especially the image showing where the features are in relation to each other. Rupples (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose if a section on a feature gets too big, the redirect can easily be turned back into a stand alone article. Restarting an article that had previously been deleted would require more confidence.
The nearby Mawson Station is a busy year round research centre, and scientists often visit the David Range to study geology or glaciology, to service equipment, or just for recreation. So most of the features are well documented. But getting plain English out of scientific papers is far from easy. It could take time before the content is expanded. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, selectively, to David Range. On one hand it doesn't seem like there is a lot to say here, but inclusion in places like Alberts 1995 suggests we are better off, encyclopedically, having this information somewhere. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:29, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article, such as it is. If you are interested in converting this page to a Redirect, you can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrisa Bukovinac[edit]

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

Delete. There appear to be two claims to fame here. Running against Joe Biden and being the executive director of Democrats for Life. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. There is no evidence that Bukovinac's candidacy will meet any sort of historic record or ten year test. It's raised funds equal to the value of a half-decent used car. The second claim to notability would be as the executive director of Democrats for Life. I don't believe being the executive director of the organization itself warrants notability given their form 990 cited on Wikipedia gives them annual revenues in the 5 figure range which much like figures of major parties turned minor parties, does not meet GNG and warrant an article. Mpen320 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mpen320 is correct that this fails NPOL. However, as that guideline notes, candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." A review of the references in the article demonstrates that with coverage in outlets like the NY Times, HuffPost, AP, etc, that the subject passes GNG, and a quick DuckDuckGo search shows there is additional content that could be added as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Except she GNG too. Most of that coverage is run of the mill coverage any minor presidential candidate would get. It doesn't separate her from most of the 1,200 candidates declared with the FEC.--Mpen320 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Allegedly taking home a box of aborted fetuses isn't routine coverage, see below... I wish I was making this up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Michigan, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She's notable, but not for NPOL. The article glosses over certain facts, but she appears to have taken home aborted fetuses [25], [26], [27], which borders NCRIME. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even clicking on the NYT link above gives five hits in the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable per GNG. A quick Google search reveals many articles from reliable sources. I took the liberty of adding some of them to the article. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable for quite a lot of reasons; article has a wide variety of good quality sources demonstrating this. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Even if she fails NPOL as a minor presidential candidate, she has had adequate coverage in reliable sources outside of her campaign, specifically regarding the aforementioned crime. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more thoughtful opinions. I'm not sure any criminal charges is sufficient to establish notability as laid out by Wikipedia notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. She borderline meets WP:GNG but it's close. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe she meets the criteria for notability. DocZach (talk) 02:50, 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. Discussion has gone stale, clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 18:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Fejes[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. As I noted there, non-notable ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Several years in the minor leagues and lower-level European leagues with no individual awards are not enough for the new notability standards. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:NSPORT page you link to clearly states: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Indeed, the rule that applies, as per WP:BASIC, is as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Here is a list of a bunch of such sources, all easily Googlable:
I understand and appreciate the need to keep Wikipedia clear of pages about random people that are of interest only to a few readers. However, stretching the Wikipedia rules to an absurd extent to justify deleting a page covering one of the biggest current stars of the Slovak highest professional ice hockey league that has been covered by full page articles in national press seems like borderline vandalism to me. Why not contribute something of value instead? Newklear007 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Seems to be enough significant coverage. The Kip 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources in the article. --NYC Guru (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Has Significance 183.87.238.141 (talk) 05:13, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 IWBF Asia-Oceania Championships[edit]

2017 IWBF Asia-Oceania Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This article relies almost entirely on associated (non-independent) sources). Our article on Wheelchair Basketball World Championship shows limited notability from outside the organization, itself, so I can't see notability of an individual season from an individual part of the world. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 7 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 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 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 06:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imen Mchara[edit]

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

The subject, a Tunisian women's footballer, has not received sufficient in-depth coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this interview. Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. JTtheOG (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:49, 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 Monk (TV series). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Clarke[edit]

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

Delete. Emmy Clarke had two supporting roles in movies and was in three television shows, only one of which in a reccuring capacity. As an actress, she does not meet GNG. I also think a redirect to Monk (TV series) could be appropriate. Mpen320 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirection to Monk (TV series) would be most appropriate. Her participation in the series has been her only relevant role. BrookTheHumming (talk) 14:16, 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 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics at the Russian Championships – Women's individual all-around[edit]

Gymnastics at the Russian Championships – Women's individual all-around (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing to suggest a national championship is notable JMWt (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 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! 04:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 03:11, 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 Gabriel & Dresden. ✗plicit 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Power[edit]

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

Prodded but got deprodded with the edit summary "relevant" (?). Should be absolutely uncontroversial given the lack of sources online and the fact that notability isn't inherited, but I have to start this discussion per WP policy so here we go. Anonymous 03:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: found no additional coverage. Chart is a small one in the grand scheme of all of Billboard's coverage, so the number one placement doesn't mean as much as it may seem to. Gabriel & Dresden (album) would be the best target, but I suspect that's also non-notable and will be starting an AfD for it as well momentarily. If it does go down then redirect this to the band page instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:06, 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 03:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Herrera[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Only one source in the article is to a reliable source publication, but it's labeled as "opinion/commentary" and it's all that I see through a search. Otherwise, it's mostly cited to his YouTube channel. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable. He lives in Texas where gun ownership is the norm. This article seems to be promoting his YouTube channel that focuses on weaponry. He's announced he'll run for office in the future - sometimes people throw their hat in the ring to promote themselves. No indication he has a political base, or even a political platform except himself. Nothing out of the ordinary here. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you not read his campaign website, which I believe is listed in the sources from my memory. https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/issues He lists quite a lot Los Pobre (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His campaign site is WP:ABOUTSELF and does not contribute to WP:GNG because it is not independent of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for an article. It's just promoting his YouTube channel. ThatOneWolf (talk|contribs) 22:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm not finding enough to meet WP:GNG (and he fails WP:NPOL). Other than what's currently in the article I found an article on MLK assassination conspiracy stuff he's into and an endorsement for his campaign from Kyle Rittenhouse. Neither of which is GNG coverage. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not found that Independent source, but that's significant coverage of Rittenhouse that touches on Herrera, rather than significant coverage of Herrera. "The Western Journal" is part of the Western Center for Journalism, which was founded by the founder of WorldNetDaily, so I question its reliability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know on "The Western Journal". I skimmed the article and the tone seemed off and to entertain his conspiracy-ing too much, that explains why. I initially suspected it was just poor writing from a local or county paper, but it appears it's just a bad source. Thanks for letting me know. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:53, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Graham (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

Jordan Graham (footballer, born 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. There is another Jordan Graham (ex Wolves/Birmingham) just to confuse matters while searching. Dougal18 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Although pretty much run of the mill WP:ROUTINE coverage. I feel he has played enough and done enough for an article. There is enough to build a picture for me. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Govvy. I found [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32], among many more sources. Player with fully pro experience and ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletiom. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First 4 are OK, last one is from his club so not SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source one is his manager being quoted about JG's cartilage injury and contains no independent coverage of Graham. Source 2 has 3 sentences of independent coverage and quotes taken from mansfieldtown.net. Source 3 has one sentence of independent coverage and source 4 has the same info on him as source 3. Stop making N:FOOTBALL arguments as well as "on going career" ones as people require to be notable now not at some time in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 12:01, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Baumgartner[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a beauty pageant contestant. Some non-RS coverage exists for her Miss Brazil USA victory but even if RS was available WP:BLP1E would apply. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She does not meet the WP:GNG, lacks cover from credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Miss Brazil USA does not seem to be a notable competition. Fails GNG more broadly. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 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 01:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Rock Indian School[edit]

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

A search for sources only found routine coverage like a student winning an award. Nothing to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 14 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! 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Other than routine coverage, no other sources found that are NSCHOOL-worthy. Tails Wx 03:09, 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 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn Indians[edit]

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

WP:NTEAM. A low-level club with no indication of notability. A few notable players have passed through, but as stated in WP:NTEAM: the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the lack of notability (many of the refs are primary, external links are dead, etc.) for the club rather than the players. Kazamzam (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Zeilinger[edit]

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

Non notable journalist who wrote a few minor articles in 2012-2014. GeorgeMisty (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's published two books. One is in it's third printing. 82.12.128.180 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as everyone is saying above. She's accomplished quite a lot and has published two books and multiple articles. The woman did a phenomenal interview with Gloria Steinem when she was a teenager! Not many people can say that! SammyCarmichael (talk) 15:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_21&oldid=1187522013"