Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

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 no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Professional Basketball League[edit]

United Professional Basketball League (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 due to a lack of sources. Let'srun (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable attempt to locate suitable sources before an article is nominated for deletion. Has this been attempted, or are you saying that there are currently not enough good sources cited in the article? That wouldn't be a proper basis for deletion. Presumably if the league existed and competed, there should be some local newspaper coverage, at the very least, though it might not all be available online. It would be inappropriate to delete the article unless sources can't be found: the present state of sourcing in articles does not establish the notability or lack of notability of topics. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 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! 22:53, 19 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, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm no expert on minor-league basketball leagues, but i found a few sources and content to add to the article.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:51, 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 no consensus‎. After several relists, I cannot see a definitive agreement whether there are sufficient sources to improve the article. I can't suggest a compromise such a merge or a redirect as nobody asked for that, so I have to close this as "no consensus". The accusations of sock-puppetry are unhelpful, if you want to do that, WP:SPI is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific Class P-8[edit]

Southern Pacific Class P-8 (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 some of the individual train engines in this class appear relatively notable for their careers and survival as museum pieces, the class itself does not share this notability. Most references here rely on passing mentions of the class when describing individual engines, while the two references that might contain greater detail on the class itself are both fairly old self-published texts. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and California. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: @27.33.233.138 has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @Trainsandotherthings also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You know what else Trainsandotherthings thinks? That you're an extremely obvious sock. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't WP:SOCKSTRIKE on a mere hunch, as was done in this edit. I've reverted that. The tag as an SPA can stay, though if they're an IP editor on a dynamic range (as the IP is), then we wouldn't necessarily see edits in that specific IP's history prior to a few days ago. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The two IP addresses are the same user. There's a AN/I discussion about them. If they were logged in it could be taken to SPI but you don't take multiple IP address of someone who doesn't have a account to SPI. TarnishedPathtalk 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's clearly got notability, plus if you see that there is sourcing issues (if you get what I am trying to say), you could just add the multiple issues template and then we will fix it. Plus, This sounds unfair to delete things that I have spent hours and tons of research into. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Locomotive classes are typically notable, and it's quite rare that they fail GNG entirely - books on trains are an entire industry onto themselves (and plenty of books have been written specifically on the Southern Pacific). That being said, my books are almost entirely about more modern locomotives so I can't speak to the notability of this specific class enough to make a formal ruling either way. I disagree with "it's clearly got notability", as the sources are about specific locomotives, not the class as a whole, and notability is not inherited. If the notability were clear, this article wouldn't have ended up at AfD in the first place. What we need are examples of significant coverage of this class (not just individual locomotives within the class) in secondary sources to show notability. Appealing to emotion ("this sounds unfair") will not be sufficient. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable enough; Google Books shows three books written by the same author, but it mentions the 2472. Otherwise, no sources are available online. Toadette (let's chat together) 06:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I have added a book aimed at SP 2467 that isn’t written by the same author 27.33.233.138 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Brian Solomon is a reputable and well-published author, I own a few of his books myself. Assuming good faith that the books do in fact give significant coverage, that would be a strong argument towards a keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Trainsandotherthings—butI do worry that the reference does not actually verify the content. If possible, I would appreciate the IP or another editor with access to the source provide a quote that evidences the claimed coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am literally doing my best to spare this article from closure. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete and Salt. I was unable to find that WP:GNG was met. This article also shows signs off WP:REFBOMB that I've seen in other articles in the last hour and I have concerns that if/when it is deleted someone may attempt to revive it in manipulative manners despite there being no notability. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP for details. TarnishedPathtalk 08:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't recall any other instance of a locomotive class (and not even a subtle sub-class) article getting to AfD, let alone deleted. Especially not when two of them were considered for preservation.

    I cannot see any virtue to either of the delete !votes. The idea that adding citations is somehow now a problem on WP, let alone the ludicrous idea that Brian Solomon isn't a reliable source? This is not how we used to work, back when we used to build things. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • It just sounds very stupid to delete something that is aimed at an entire class of locomotives. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE NEW AND JUST GOT CREATED! 220.235.238.29 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any sympathy other editors might have had for you went right out the window when you engaged in blatant sockpuppetry to try and maliciously contravene consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • My lack of sympathy is directed towards the editor who goes around calling IP addresses sock-puppets for no good reason, and characterizing disagreement and citing books as malicious. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm not sure if you're trolling or just being willfully ignorant, but either way it's a bad look and I suggest you stop before people start calling into question your competence to continue serving as an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 22 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! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Solomon is a reliable source, xe gives this subject short shrift in the books that I can read. The 2009 Steam Power book gives this 3 sentences, one on page 121, one on page 123, and one on page 125. The 2005 Passenger Trains book has a sentence on page 27 and a sentence on page 106. But it looks like this is one of those articles where there are a multitude of such little sources, and the Solomon sources that I've read check out and support the content. I even found a couple of sources not cited, such as ISBN 9780870950124 which might contain yet more little bits. I'm not sure what documentation being from the 1960s has to do with things, when the subject dates from the first half of the 20th century. In my writing world we call that nearly contemporary sourcing. Guy L. Dunscomb's credentials, in particular, are that he was a railway historian and photographer who actually worked for Southern Pacific. By my reading, as also a member of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society and the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society, Dunscomb's credentials as a subject expert are better than Solomon's. So I agree with Andy Dingley here. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is so incredibly empty that the articles for the 2467 and 2472 have way more information, this article in general doesn't have much information to warrant being kept around. BigSneeze444 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is some coverage of the P-8 class in Classic Locomotives: Steam and Diesel Power in 700 Photographs on pages 122-127. Ordinarily, 5 pages would be an easy example of WP:SIGCOV, but this book is full of pictures that take up most of the pages. Still, there's probably ~13 sentences in the source that can be used to build upon this. My bigger problem in evaluating this is that much of the coverage seems to be in print sources I lack access to. I will opine the Brain Solomon's booksthat are published by Voyageur Press seem to be standard sorts of popular press books; they don't appear to be self-published. Classic Locomotives: Steam and Diesel Power in 700 Photographs, for example, even lists a staff editor (Dennis Pernu) in its credits. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Brian Solomon is a well-known author as far as books on American railroads go, and if this weren't created by an editor with such a poor track record I don't think people would be calling things into doubt like this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article appears to have been created by an IP and accepted at AfC. I'm not sure what poor track record is getting at here.
    In any case, I agree that Solomon's books published by Voyageur Press seem to be reliable sources here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk, this particularly IP is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP. It has created a number of articles which feature WP:REFBOMBing. TarnishedPathtalk 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Solomon's references are RS, but very trivial. I think I'd rather have the individual locomotive articles kept (for the preserved examples), than simply a bare-bones example of the class of locomotive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 27 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! 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find [1] mentions one locomotive that's been preserved, I don't think it's enough to keep the article. The class gets mentions when the history of the SP (Southern Pacific) is mentioned, but only briefly. The books mentioned in the article as sourcing are fine, one is only a series of photographs that mentions the class. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best I could find was this [2], basically a roster of every locomotive the company owned. The kind of stuff foamers (what we railfans call ourselves), foam at the mouth over, but nothing we can use to build a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are musuems in Oregon and in California that have preserved examples, but with less than a paragraph each, coverage just isn't enough here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sourcing is in adequate both in the article and what I can see available. Others have engaged in assessment of sources in good faith and do not find them sufficient. In the absence of better sources by those arguing for keep, I have to support the argument for deletion. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Karl Wolf. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mash It Up[edit]

Mash It Up (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)

Rejected PROD, poorly sourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Karl Wolf. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurting (song)[edit]

Hurting (song) (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)

PROD rejected, unsourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (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 redirect‎ to Karl Wolf. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yalla Habibi[edit]

Yalla Habibi (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)

PROD rejected, poorly sourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Chirica[edit]

Alina Chirica (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)

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. The subject, a Moldovan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Kolarovska[edit]

Sara Kolarovska (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 Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions in match reports (1, 2) and squad lists (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malado Maïga[edit]

Malado Maïga (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 made a single appearance for the Mali women's national football team, which is confirmed by a passing mention (1). There are also passing mentions of her club career (1, 2), but nothing that indicates any sort of lasting notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:51, 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 draftify‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Senior[edit]

Matthew Senior (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)

Lacks significant in-depth coverage. Only statistical coverage and passing mentions. X (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft Okay start, but certainly not GNG yet, but to have faith it could goto draft space. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - This page was nominated for deletion withinn hours of going live, and there was no attempt to discuss notability on the talk page prior to that. The nom. statement then says it lacks significant in depth coverage, and so it might be worth having a read of WP:DEMOLISH. Per that essay, not happy with deletion here. However there isn't any clear evidence that this person is notable. It may be WP:TOOSOON. All the same, if the page creator wants to continue working on the article in the belief they can demonstrate notability, I believe they should be allowed to do so (with the advice that they should concentrate on notability first to avoid wasting their time). The page isn't ready for mainspace, so draftify this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 19:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafify -pare above reasons. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:50, 30 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 22:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska–Texas football rivalry[edit]

Nebraska–Texas 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)

Doesn't appear to be a substantial rivalry. The two schools have a very limited history with each other (were only Big 12 conference for a little over a decade in separate divisions). Cited sources also use the word "rivalry" hesitantly. funplussmart (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Nebraska, and Texas. funplussmart (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not finding the needed depth of coverage that we should have for a true rivalry. Passing mentions not enough, especially since other factors weigh against this being a notable rivalry: (i) semi-regular play limited to the period 1996-2010 (four earlier games, zero later games), (ii) lack of trophy or named rivalry, (iii) limited marquee match-ups (zero games with both teams ranked in top 10 and five games with both in top 20), and (iv) lack of geographic proximity (not border states, 820 miles from Lincoln to Austin). Cbl62 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per Cbl62’s argument above. Fails GNG with very little SIGCOV of this meeting as a “rivalry” or notable series. Though they have a handful of top-25 meetings and played in three Big 12 championships, two teams simultaneously being competitive for any stretch of time does not make them rivals. Frank Anchor 05:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This rivalry has had some occasional passing coverage over the years, but mere mentions and questioning whether the teams are even rivals at all does not lend to notability. User:Let'srun 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NRIVALRY. The only notable reference--the NYTimes article--doesn't even mention the word "rivalry". Owen× ☎ 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Procol Harum. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Knights[edit]

David Knights (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG--what little coverage is available is all in the context of Procol Harum, and this page should redirect there per WP:BANDMEMBER signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Biennio Rosso. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turin factory occupation of 1920[edit]

Turin factory occupation of 1920 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was translated from the Swedish Wikipedia in 2013 and has existed as a more-or-less unchanged stub since then. I tried looking for other sources, but only managed to find a couple through Google Scholar;[3] these only reference it in passing, without much detail, as part of broader sections on the Biennio Rosso.

As this article doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines, I propose redirecting it to our article on the Biennio Rosso, where sourced information about it already exists. There's nothing in this worth merging. Grnrchst (talk) 20:15, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Chavo del Ocho (character)[edit]

El Chavo del Ocho (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)

Nothing in the article nor my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG, although perhaps sources exist in Spanish? Spanish wiki article is even worse than ours, so no help there. Pure plot summary, poorly referenced too, no reception/analysis anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is like deleting Mickey Mouse in the English world; I see absolutely no BEFORE done and there's no excuse with easy translation these days to just dismiss sources 'because they're in another language'. It also already has two sources to meet the GNG even before being taken here. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Chavo is one of the most iconic television characters in all of Latin/South American culture. Both he and Chapulin had programs that were different from Chespirito's other works, even if the article itself needs improvements, the notability is undeniable. Svartner (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character appears in multiple shows (El Chavo del Ocho, El Chavo Animado), so a standalone article is justifiable if there is enough sourcing. I think these add up to GNG: [4], [5], [6]. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figure/Ground[edit]

Figure/Ground (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:BEFORE shows no sources. Literally a random website that won a cool award once. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LeiLani Jones[edit]

LeiLani Jones (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 winner. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to NHS trust. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital trust[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hospital trust (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)

Low-value article. "Hospital trust" is not a legally or otherwise defined term, all trusts which run hospitals are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts. Single cited source also is not specific to the term.

Contains no information of value that isn't already covered at NHS trust and therefore does not even need merging, simple delete and perhaps redirect will suffice.

Article can essentially be summed up "a hospital trust is a NHS trust which runs hospital services".

That does not need an article Elshad (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harold de Gruchy[edit]

Harold de Gruchy (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 player was previously deemed notable under the WP:NAFL for having played one Victorian Football League game, but this SNG no longer exists after WP:NSPORTS2022. All references in the article at time of nomination are database, Holmesby & Main (where all players have at least a cursory entry for completeness - inclusion alone is not SIGCOV), or public newspaper death notices (notices only, not obituaries - again not SIGCOV). A google search for Harold de Gruchy Melbourne shows up database and wikis only [7]. Among those, the Demonwiki (Melbourne Football Club fan history wiki) [8] includes links to a total of two news articles which mention his existence as a footballer, and two funeral notices; the only descriptions of him as a footballer were to note in one sentence that he was from Cumloden College and that he did not have a good game in his sole game [9] – certainly insufficient description of the subject to constitute SIGCOV or contribute to the meeting of GNG. 1899-1901 newspaper search for "de gruchy football melbourne" shows a couple of routine references to playing school football for Cumloden College, but nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE and nothing which would exceed the requirements of WP:YOUNGATH [10]. My conclusion is that multiple secondary independent sources do not exist and shall never exist. If not deletion, then I am of the opinion that this article could be redirected to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s consistent with previous AfDs for similar situations, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Kemp. Aspirex (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Aspirex (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I mean of course all the coverage simply focuses on his junior football, the sole game he played in the VFL and his death. He died less than two months after his first VFL game aged 20. Those are the only things the coverage of him could reasonably focus on. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also disagree that coverage in a specialised encyclopedia such as by Holmesby & Main does constitute (or at the very least contribute to) significant coverage. I refer you to Wikipedia's first pillar: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine). Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s. No coverage beyond routine birth and death notices and the absolute barest of mentions in match reports. I've got the most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers and can quote de Gruchy's entry in its entirety: DE GRUCHY, HAROLD (MELB.) ― 1901, 1 game, 0 goals. (b. 9 Feb 1881). That's not significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 11:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, a player who died in 1901 doesn't have a plethora of sources on the internet via a Google search? How shocking! Honestly, this is a perfect example of why the deemed notability SNG guidelines existed.
Considering redirection: does List of Melbourne Football Club players contain all the information in this article? No and it shouldn't and therefore I object to redirect. --SuperJew (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should not expect many sources from a simple Google search, but the lack of coverage on Trove is pretty damning. – Teratix ₵ 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no coverage on a player who died right after making his top-level professional debut?? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Top level, but not professional. The league in question was somewhere between amateur and unendorsed semi-professional at the time of his game. But yes, I have found no coverage beyond routine mentions in match reports. Aspirex (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't understand those editors arguing for Keep while acknowledging the lack of reliable sources. I have to abide by consensus but this is not the standard that has been applied to other sportspeople in recent AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nom fails to explain why this needs to be deleted and in fact acknowledges that alternatives to deletion exist. We have here verified content found in a specialised encyclopaedia. Yes maybe individual stand alone stubs for one game players is not the best solution and some form of team summary or list article is the best way of covering this sort of verified content of public interest but that does not require deletion. Consensus for not deleting already seems clear here. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this AfD has been open three weeks and despite three keep votes, not one single example of WP:SIGCOV (let alone multiple examples) has been found to counter my original basis of nomination. Aspirex (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment. WP:SPORTCRIT requires that significant coverage be in sport biographies in all cases minus exceptional circumstances (i.e. WP:IAR); I don't think one single game played in 1901 would be an exceptional circumstance? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s per Teratrix. No significant coverage.--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:7C5D:8A:FDE4:6148 (talk) 07:44, 4 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. If an editor volunteers to attempt a salvaging of the content, the page can be undeleted and merged. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of the New York City Fire Department[edit]

Organization of the New York City Fire Department (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)

Also nominating:

These articles are excessively and unnecessarily detailed, and mostly uncited, and furthermore I'm not convinced there even needs to be an article about something like this. The appropriate information could be added to the article New York City Fire Department (or relevant parent article) with this as a redirect.

... discospinster talk 18:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd be more inclined to keep this if it had better sourcing. Very extensive, but could all be OR. I honestly can't find sources with this level of details. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since your Canadian please look at the Toronto Fire Services page to see what you think and if something like that should be done for the FDNY page? Tom950 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what an editor's nationality has to do with a discussion on deleting an article. If your editing, Tom950, is based on your nationality, perhaps a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia isn't the best place for you. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced portions, if any, with New York City Fire Department and Chicago Fire Department, respectively. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the Los Angeles Fire Department page and the Toronto Fire Services page everything is on one page. Besides individuals who have an interest in firefighting enjoy reading this type of stuff. Tom950 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other places where this specific information might be more appropriate, such as Fandom (e.g. Fire.fandom.com). General encyclopedias do not go into this level of detail. If you'll notice, there aren't articles about the company organization of, e.g. Apple or Walmart or other types of organizations. ... discospinster talk 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced portions with New York City Fire Department and Chicago Fire Department per OwenX. While this needs quite a bit of work to be salvageable, I will note that sources do exist for some of these fire stations, if not other parts of the articles - for example, many of the NYC fire stations are mentioned in the AIA Guide to New York City and the Guide to New York City Landmarks for their historical significance - so it may be worth splitting off the fire stations to their own lists. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to need to be deleted unless by adding more related adequate sources; or perhaps at most, it can be merged in a related page. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see an explicit consensus to delete the article; however there is a disagreement over whether or not to merge this article with another, and if so, how the two articles should be combined. However, all of that can be done by regular editing, and does not need an AfD open to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Community Radio[edit]

Muslim Community 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)

Article does not cite any sources nor assert notability. It is difficult to find sources for this as searches generally surface general references to "Muslim community radio" stations rather than this specific broadcaster, but I cannot see any reference to it ever having been a licensed long-term broadcasting station within London. It appears to have operated a number of short-term licences. Flip Format (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The station has broadcast RSLs during Ramadan for many years and this demonstrates notability. Also, the article does contain references, although I feel that more should be sourced to further strengthen this article's place on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article cites no third-party sources, just links to its own (defunct) website, and there is no Wikipedia policy that states a radio station is notable simply because it has broadcast. Flip Format (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable with no third-party coverage, and sources — archived press release and station's own website — are a joke. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable topic (source are primary or routine for WP:ORG) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article which only sites primary sources makes the article's retention that much harder to justify, especially as there are also notability concerns. I am not in favour of articles being deleted but, following the most recent additional comments by User:Flip Format and User:Beemer69 I am now happy to alter my vote to draftify in the hope that independent sources can be found, and if not, then the article can be automatically deleted when the draft-space period expires. Rillington (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I have added 4 new sources just from the first page of google books and there are lot more available in the following pages that can be used to expand this article significantly. Similarly, it is mentioned on various journals per the search results on google scholar. MCR has been cited in a lot of books as well. Jeraxmoira (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ITEXISTS. The added Google Books sources are passing mentions. Not really enough for notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following Jeraxmoira's excellent efforts regarding adding independent sources, I am in a dilemma as to whether to revert back to Weak keep. One positive thing that can come out of AfD discussions is that it insentivises people to improve articles to try to get them retained and this is a perfect example of this. Now feel that the article now has sufficient independent references to mean that this article would no longer need to be moved to draftspace as I think it's now unlikely that further improvements can be made. Ultimately I think it comes down to whether former stations that had broadcast for temporary periods are seen as notable enough to have an article. Rillington (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Radio Ramadan. Owen× ☎ 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across Radio Ramadan, but I guess both are different as this is mentioned as "Ramadan Radio" and has a different frequency Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is the same, then Radio Ramadan should be merged with Muslim Community Radio! Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, with Muslim Community Radio retained and Radio Ramadan merged into it. However, from what the article indicates, this isn't about a radio station. Instead it is about "a type of...radio station which operates...during the Ramadan period." Rillington (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a ton of coverage about Muslim Community Radio (2MFM) in Sydney, Australia, which continues to operate (at least 52 hits on ProQuest including duplicates and not all in-depth, but there are enough articles where Muslim Community Radio is the main focus). If this article is kept, and an article for 2MFM is created, this article would need to be renamed (possibly "Muslim Community Radio (UK)") and "Muslim Community Radio" would either become a disambiguation page, or 2MFM in Australia could become primary. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Muslim Community Radio on South Africa as well. [11] Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:08, 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 Agile software development#History. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arie van Bennekum[edit]

Arie van Bennekum (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)

does not meet basic criteria for inclusion as I could not find sustainable coverage from independent reliable sources, i.e., WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Teufel & Cie Photogerätebau[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Attempts at finding significant coverage have been made. toweli (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 merge‎ to List of generation I Pokémon. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charmander[edit]

Charmander (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 realize this is going to ruffle some people, but hear me out: the sources that are there are, with the exception of one, are all extremely minor, many less than a few words in passing. Heck there's one in there about a Pokemon toy that's trying to claim it's about Charmander when the toy itself is minor in the story it's about. That's the sort of WP:REFBOMB-ing we're dealing with. There's just no notability, even without considering Charizard by comparison, who still fills in the role of the original trio's ensemble cast.

WP:BEFORE also didn't turn up anything of value. The book "Japanese Influence on American Children's Television" offers a recap of Charmander to Charizard's role in the anime, but that can be worked into Charizard proper for the same results, especially the design critique of it going from cute to fearsome. It's not enough to prop up the article alongside the Polygon source when all the bad sourcing is removed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:34, 26 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) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree that Charmander doesn't pass GNG - besides the Polygon article, there are some scattered mentions of the Charmander episode early on in the Pokemon anime in books, but they are all very short. I couldn't find slam-dunk evidence either in the page or in my searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just the information about his card alone would probably be good enough for an article. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be confusing Charmander with Charizard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zxcvbnm. The coverage is mostly trivial mentions, which aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are good lists for this, as WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A bit surprised that Charmander doesn't have much coverage due to it being iconic, thou does not pass notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:21, 30 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. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Euryops (disambiguation)[edit]

Euryops (disambiguation) (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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete with only two topics, can be handled directly with a hatnote. Keep improvements show it is a useful page. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sviridov[edit]

Ivan Sviridov (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)

NATH fail. There are no non-primary sources about this athlete that I could find. Fermiboson (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. Only sources found are databases, that goes for Kazakh-language sources as well, failing basic criteria as noted above. Tails Wx 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. NATH does not exist for footballers. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:02, 30 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:BOLD, the fact that "evidence of notability" was found to exist when the article appeared on Wikipedia's front page on 26 January 2020, and lastly the fact that the nominator has made no attempt to discuss why the sources, which were all present in the article at the time of the nomination, fall short of Wikipedia's demands. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Rodríguez de Bukele[edit]

Gabriela Rodríguez de Bukele (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)

There is no evidence of notability. Being the president's wife certainly is not TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally presumed notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on a number of articles about her. See 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I think this was a poor nomination.Royal88888 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Spouses of heads of state are presumed notable. This presumption of notability can be disproven, but in this instance it stands as there appears to be plenty of significant coverage of her. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with plenty of articles about her. --Mvqr (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough examples of significant coverage in reliable sources for this to pass the requirements for notability. Rublamb (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of at least two books. --hroest 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough evidence of the work of the First Lady and the benefits for the salvadoran --JuanP3rs 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Judie[edit]

Carl Judie (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 WP:NACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I can find on him is blogs and WP:THESUN. Wikishovel (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the three references you've cited is that they're all blog posts, rather than WP:Reliable sources. A hundred blog references like that still wouldn't demonstrate notability: we're looking for coverage in newspapers, books, films, etc, showing how Judie was notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Wikishovel (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails NACTOR, and I'm not really seeing a case for WP:GNG either.-KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and those above. Sources are below the threshold for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid McVittie[edit]

Wilfrid McVittie (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)

Declined prod. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal, Argentina, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Via Gale -- There's a paragraph in The Times at the time of his appointment, which goes somewhat beyond routine to give a little detail of his career. (New ambassador. The Times (54038) Jan. 2, 1958, p. 6.) Also several shorter bits of Times coverage at the same time (Court Circular Jan. 11, 1958 The Times (54046) p. 8 & Court Circular Feb. 13, 1958 The Times (54074) p. 10). He received a Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George in the Queen's Birthday Honours (The Birthday Honours. June 12, 1958 The Times (54175), p. 4). His retirement is briefly covered (News in Brief. Friday, Mar. 23, 1962. The Times (55347), p. 8). Via Newspapers.com -- Decent (6-para) article in Times Colonist (Japanese not anti-British. 28 Dec 1937, Tue ·Page 2). Also covered in The Toronto Star (3 paras. Sees Japan's people friendly to Britain. 29 Dec 1937, Wed ·Page 20). Decent article on his marriage in The Toronto Star (seven paragraphs; 29 Dec 1937, Wed ·Page 26). Article on him warning people to leave Japan in Panama City News-Herald (ten+ paras. 21 Jan 1941, Tue ·Page 1). Some coverage in The Toronto Star (8 Dec 1941, Mon ·Page 27), which says he was consul-general in Japan and talks about his (Canadian) wife. Paragraph on their honeymoon in The Toronto Star ( 18 Jan 1938, Tue ·Page 20). Long para in The Winnipeg Tribune on birth of child (7 Jan 1942, Wed ·Page 8). He's quoted on trade in Manchester Evening News (3 short paras; 21 Oct 1957, Mon ·Page 16). Article in The Guardian on trade (2 long paras; 22 Oct 1957, Tue ·Page 14) Short article in The Guardian Journal on his appointment as ambassador (2 Jan 1958, Thu ·Page 2). Para in Telegraph (11 Jan 1958, Sat ·Page 8). Several paras in The Daily Telegraph on 4 ambassadors travelling together (16 Oct 1959, Fri ·Page 12) Also mentioned in Liverpool Daily Post (16 Oct 1959, Fri ·Page 6) and para in The Guardian (16 Oct 1959, Fri ·Page 2). Retirement briefly covered in The Telegraph (23 Mar 1962, Fri ·Page 15). I think there's enough here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holder of the CMG, always considered to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. Plus meets WP:GNG per Espresso Addict. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music in professional wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Music in professional wrestling (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 notable. The article has the tag OR since 2008. No in deep coverage of the subject by reliable sources. Few sources just talk about a musician created music, but not enough for the article. Survived a AfD in 2007, but it was just a list of theme musics HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:14, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Shiqi[edit]

Dai Shiqi (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)

PROD objected with an invalid reason that I cannot understand. No sources are provided online, fails GNG completely. Timothytyy (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. 中共人名錄 [Who's Who in Communist China] (in Chinese). Taipei: Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University [zh]. National Chengchi University. 1989. OCLC 25869396. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "... 戴詩琪,年籍及學歷待查。戴詩琪駐赤道幾內亞「大使」。文學藝術界聯合會」第二屆全國委員會委員。一九五四年八月,當選第一屆「全國人民代表大會」代表。一九五五年,任「中國人民對外文化協會」理事、「中國舞蹈工作者協會」副主席。一九五六年,任「中國亞非團結委員會」委員並當選「民盟」第二屆中央委員。一九五七年五月,任「中央實驗歌劇院」舞劇團長、「北京舞蹈學校」校長。一九五八年九月,當選第二屆全國人民代表大會北京市代表;十二月當選連任俄中國國民黨革命委員會第四屆中央常務委員。一九五九年四月十七日連任俄中國人民政治協商會議第三屆全國委員會委員(俄國民黨革命委員會) ;同月廿七日任僞第二屆全國人民代表大會常務委員;五月二日任..."

      From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi, age and academic qualifications are yet to be checked. Dai Shiqi is the "Ambassador" to Equatorial Guinea. Member of the Second National Committee of the Federation of Literary and Art Circles. In August 1954, he was elected as a representative of the first National People's Congress. In 1955, he served as a director of the "Chinese People's Association for Foreign Culture" and vice chairman of the "Chinese Dance Workers Association". In 1956, he served as a member of the "China Asian-African Solidarity Committee" and was elected as a member of the second Central Committee of the "Democratic League". In May 1957, he served as the director of the dance troupe of the "Central Experimental Opera House" and the principal of the "Beijing Dance School". In September 1958, he was elected as Beijing representative to the Second National People's Congress; in December, he was re-elected as a member of the Fourth Central Standing Committee of the Russian-Chinese Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee. On April 17, 1959, he was re-elected as a member of the Third National Committee of the Russian-Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (Revolutionary Committee of the Russian Kuomintang); on the 27th of the same month, he was appointed as a member of the Standing Committee of the Second National People's Congress; on May 2 appoint..."

    2. 現代中国人名辞典: 1991年版 [A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kazankai. 霞山会. 1991. OCLC 37804357. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "戴詩琪 Dai Shiqi 経歴 1984 年 2 月在 2 亻>大使館参事宫 87 年 1 月駐赤道キ二大使。 90 年 10 月駐 ㄦ ㄧ 大使。たいしせい戴詩晴 Dai Shiqing 経歴 1950 年地質工作部技術者,工程師。文革時:批判る。経歴 1989 年 5 月当时中国汽車(自動車工業連合会代理理事長。 90 年 6 月当时中国汽車工業總公司總經理。 93 年 3 月第 8 期全人大福建省代表。"

      From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi 経歴 February 1984 in February 亻> Embassy Counselor Palace Ambassador to Equator in January 1987. Ambassador to ㄦㄧ in October 1990. Dai Shiqing Dai Shiqing 経歴In 1950, he was a technician and engineer of the Ministry of Geological Work. During the Cultural Revolution, he was criticized. In May 1989, he was the acting chairman of the China Automobile Industry Association. In June 1990, he was the general manager of China Automobile Industry Corporation. In 1993 Representative of Fujian Province in the 8th session of the National People's Congress in March."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dai Shiqi (simplified Chinese: 戴诗琪; traditional Chinese: 戴詩琪) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard They seem very biographical and non-secondary to me. They just list out the career of the subject; per WP:SECONDARY, no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" can be seen. Timothytyy (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Biographical dictionary lists reference publications titled Who's Who as an example.

I consider inclusion in Chinese Communist Who's Who (published by a Taiwanese publisher) and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons (published by a Japanese publisher) to be strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat. Each of these sources is a synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources that discuss the subject's biographical background. The authors of these books had to decide which facts were important enough to include in the subject's biography.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You added a large chunk of undigested information, but you still didn't provide anything that meets the secondary source requiement, i.e. the requiement of GNG. You said these sources are "strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat as each of these sources are synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources", so you consider them to be notable. Are you able to find these secondary sources? If not, I don't see why it passes GNG or ANYBIO. Timothytyy (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to dismiss either the Who's Who or A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons as being primary. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they were primary, I believe they are tertiary. However the tertiary sources didn't provide any sources to their claims, so we aren't reaching any secondary sources, which I believe is the only type of source that helps an article pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For both books, the Google Books snippet view does not show whether the entries cited any primary or secondary sources. The existence of any additional sources is immaterial since these two sources are sufficient.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says (bolding added for emphasis): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."

The "no original research" policy and the "notability for people" guideline demonstrate that these two national biographical dictionaries are perfectly acceptable in establishing notability.

Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is incorrect to treat the two books as a country's standard national biographical dictionaries as they are not even published by (not even in) the PRC or the CPC, the country which the subject comes from and serves. Therefore, it doesn't pass the ANYBIO criterion. Secondly, even when tertiary sources are needed, it doesn't make an article pass GNG. GNG criterion which you provided: "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." Therefore, the two tertiary sources you provided do not contribute to GNG since they are not secondary, so BASIC is failed. Thus, all BIO criteria are failed. Timothytyy (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Dai Shiqi was covered in "Chinese persons" dictionaries published by Japanese and Taiwanese publishers is very significant in establishing notability, even more so than if he was covered in a "Chinese persons" dictionary published by a Chinese publisher. It means he received international coverage.

It is unclear whether Chinese Communist Who's Who and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons are secondary sources or tertiary sources. But the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is very clear in saying that both secondary sources and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

If the biographical dictionaries are tertiary sources, Cunard (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tertiary sources can help establish notability, but according to GNG and BASIC, articles must have secondary sources to guarantee basic (i.e. presumed) notability. If we don't have secondary sources but only have 2 books which we don't know if fact-checking work is done due to the lack of references in them, we cannot ensure reliablity. For example, encyclopedias which doesn't list out references supporting their claims cannot provide notability as its accuracy can be challenged. This is why notability guidelines, e.g. GNG and BASIC, emphasize on secondary sources. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. According to FAILN, anything that fails the notability criteria shall to be merged or deleted; as NOR is not an N guideline and it fails GNG due to the lack of secondary sources, I suggest a merge to the lists provided by Folly Mox, by gathering info provided by the sources, or a deletion.
GNG requires reliable secondary sources. If you believe a discussion on whether the sources are secondary or tertiary is necessary and my elaborations above are too simple, controversial, or problematic, I would be pleased to present my views more detailly. Thank you very much. Timothytyy (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The national dictionaries are reliable sources from reputable publishers. There is no requirement for reliable sources to cite sources in order to be considered reliable.

The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. – it is unclear whether the national dictionaries are secondary sources or tertiary sources. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from primary sources, the national dictionaries are secondary sources.

Cunard (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why you mention the sources as "national dictionaries". Also, "if the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage" is just a very rough assumption, you don't even know whether the sources of these publications are 1. independent, 2. reliable, and 3. provide detailed coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are not independent, they are primary sources. If the sources are not reliable sources, the national dictionaries would not have relied on them. If the sources do not provide detailed coverage, then per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria multiple sources can be combined to establish notability.

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already.

Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, according to PRIMARY, primary sources may be independent, and according to SECONDARY, secondary sources are not necessarily independent. Secondly, I still don't understand why the sources about Chinese people written by non-governmental Taiwanese and Japanese people are considered as national biographies, and why reliability is assumed. Timothytyy (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected but maintain that these national biographies are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability regardless of whether they are secondary or tertiary sources based on Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I consider Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University [zh] and Kazankai [ja] to be reputable publishers. They are national biographies because of their scope. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(If you believe that these 2 sources are rooted with reliability, please find further sources that is secondary, which I would say is most preferred, which can conduct fact-checking.) Assuming their reliability, they are still encyclopedic and doesn't develop anything except the rigid history of the person, so I believe they are tertiary. I still root on general notability guidelines, I.e. GNG and BASIC. If the discussion didn't change the wordings of GNG and BASIC, the most basic guidelines, at all, I wouldn't say it is accepted by the community. Consensus isn't that strong after all. Timothytyy (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dai Shiqi was a Chinese ambassador in the 1980s and 1990s to Equatorial Guinea and Peru. It is very difficult to find sources for a Chinese ambassador whose tenure was in the pre-Internet era in South America and West Africa. He could have been covered by pre-Internet, offline Chinese, Peru, or Equatorial Guinea sources, but those are very hard to find. What we have is significant coverage in two national biographies published by a reputable Taiwanese publisher and a reputable Japanese publisher. I consider that sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I cannot see any possible significant events which may bring the subject SIGCOV. Even if there is, they might not be reliable. Also, let us gather other users' opinions, because I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Timothytyy (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Espresso Addict (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to ping indviduals as it can be seen as WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me guess what Espresso Addict will !vote, since they removed the prod. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" WP:APPNOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

    The editor who proposed the article for deletion is the AfD nominator so is already aware of the discussion and does not need to be pinged. The only other involved editor is the one who removed the proposed deletion. I noticed that the article creator has not been notified so I will notify them on their talk page.The article creator archived the notifications.

    I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is better to err on the side of caution and not notify other editors of AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that concerned editors should be notified so long as the canvassing guideline is not violated. AfDs frequently have few participants, so informing concerned editors helps lessen that problem. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. [I was already aware of this AfD before Cunard's ping] Cunard's sources do look sufficiently in-depth to meet GNG to me. Generally I'd prefer to keep articles on Chinese topics as we have a real problem with systematic bias but I won't issue a formal vote in the circumstances. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Espresso, this is why I think pinging is unnecessary. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll let ReplyTool figure it out. Feel free to refactor.
    Cunard's sources both seem reliable and independent, and each contributes to notability. My initial BEFORE was not adequate, so I'll look again on my own later (hopefully today?). I would translate the title of the first source as Who's Who in Communist China, and note that google translate guesses the language of the second source incorrectly. It's Japanese, but with a very high proportion of kanji, indicating little verb conjugation and few other particles. It's probably written in a very brief style like a list rather than full regular prose sentences (I can't read Japanese). Google translate does a little better job with that one if you feed it the correct starting language.
    Hoping to get back to this soon; already switched to keep above. Folly Mox (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing the sources, for the better translation for the first source's title, and for the correction about the second source being in Japanese with a high proportion of kanji. I've fixed updated the citation templates in my comment. It was difficult to find significant coverage for Dai Shiqi (simplified Chinese: 戴诗琪; traditional Chinese: 戴詩琪), so it is unsurprising your WP:BEFORE did not find them. To find these sources, I searched for "Dai Shiqi", "戴诗琪" (his simplified Chinese name), and "戴詩琪" (his traditional Chinese name) and went through several dozen Google Books results that were passing mentions before I found these two sources.

    Cunard (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think this barely scrapes by based on Cunard's sources. It might be considered borderline, but I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping in this case because, as mentioned above, most sources will be offline or otherwise hard to find for a diplomat who was active before the 21st century. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Minhui (diplomat)[edit]

Huang Minhui (diplomat) (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)

PROD objected without valid reason. No sources can be found online. Maybe the de-PRODer got confused with the sources providing coverage to Huang Min-hui, who is a Taiwanese. There are also a lot of sources about other people with similar (Chinese) names, but nothing about this subject turns up. Timothytyy (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Timothytyy (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Peru. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ambassadors of China to Peru#People's Republic of China (1971–present) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about Huang Minhui (simplified Chinese: 黄敏慧; traditional Chinese: 黃敏慧) in my searches for sources.

    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) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pinging Espresso Addict (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion.

    Pinging 180app (talk · contribs), who wrote, "I translated the article from another Wikipedia -- perhaps the results appear only in Chinese web results? For example regarding Huang, I found that there's a fair amount of coverage in Peruvian media. If nothing does come up in the end I understand the nomination and subsequent deletion of both articles."

    180app, do the Peruvian sources provide significant coverage of Huang Minhui? Strong sources would discuss her biography, while insufficient sources would only mention her participation in an event, for example. I am willing to change my position if significant coverage is found. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked again and most articles deal with the latter, although a few results down I did find this book for example which, on pages 63-64 (65-66/96 on the PDF) speaks of her career, dating back to the 1970s and ending in her retirement in 2015. I'll add this information to the article and I'd be happy to read your feedback after these changes are made. 180app (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding this source, 180app (talk · contribs).
    1. Bedoya, Carlos Alonso (October 2016). Poder e Inversión en el Perú 2011–2016: Actores, prioridades e intereses [Power and Investment in Peru 2011-2016: Actors, priorities and interests] (PDF) (in Spanish). Lima: Red Peruana por una Globalización con Equidad. pp. 63–64. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27.

      From a Google Translate of this page: "The Peruvian Network for a Globalization with Equity – RedGE is an inter-institutional alliance of non-governmental development organizations, unions and social movements that promote the generation of an alternative vision of a national project that promotes conditions of equity in the globalization process."

      I see no indication that this source is unreliable, but I am not familiar with this source. If it is a reliable source, then it provides very detailed coverage about the subject and is a strong source.

      The source notes: "El caso más interesante es el de la ex Embajadora en el Perú, Huang Minhui quien fue destacada como cuadro político de Pekín en el segundo semestre de 2011, durante los primeros meses de gobierno de Ollanta Humala, hasta que en julio de 2015, tras jubilarse de una larga carrera diplomática, fue reemplazada ... Huang Minhui estuvo vinculada a este lado del planeta desde la década del setenta. Fue testigo de excepción de importantes procesos como las primeras reformas [long list of events] ... Incluso, le tocó ser observadora en la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) en el periodo en que surgía la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR) y se daba forma a la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) como contrapeso político al organismo de integración hemisférica con mayor influencia de Estados Unidos."

      From Google Translate: "The most interesting case is that of the former Ambassador to Peru, Huang Minhui, who was highlighted as a political cadre in Beijing in the second half of 2011, during the first months of Ollanta Humala's government, until July 2015, after retiring. After a long diplomatic career, she was replaced... Huang Minhui was linked to this side of the planet since the seventies. She was an exceptional witness of important processes such as the first reforms [long list of events]... She even had to be an observer in the Organization of American States (OAS) in the period in which the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) emerged and The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was shaped as a political counterweight to the hemispheric integration organization with the greatest influence of the United States."

      There is further coverage. From Google Translate "... Which was enhanced by the Strategic Partnership Integral of 2013, in which Huang Minhui was a key player."  and "... She defended Shougang's labor policy at times when there was a strong labor conflict ..."

    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.
    If Bedoya 2016 is reliable, Huang Minhui is very close to passing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am striking my support for "redirect" but am not supporting "keep" yet since she is not over the notability line yet. Are there any additional sources that cover her? It is fine for those sources to provide less significant biographical coverage since multiple sources can be combined.

    Cunard (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    With limited amount of coverage, I believe adding some content about this subject in the list article would be nice since there is a little bit of useful information we can provide. Timothytyy (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't found much more but I did find two articles that name her as the wife of fellow diplomat Li Jinzhang (Portuguese Wiki article): the first is an article from the Chinese Embassy in Brazil's website and the second is from the website of Itaipu Dam in Paraguay. 180app (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    180app (talk · contribs), thank you very much for sharing the name of her husband, Li Jinzhang (Chinese: 李金章). This allowed me to find Liu 2018, which is a second source that provides significant biographical background about her. These two sources about her, combined with the other sources discussing her participation in events during her career as an ambassador, allow her to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Selection of the two strongest sources that provide significant biographical background about her:
      1. Bedoya 2016, which I discussed above.
      2. Liu, Yilong 刘艺龙 (2018-12-06). "驻巴西大使李金章将离任并结束外交生涯" [Ambassador Li Jinzhang in Brazil will leave and end his diplomatic career]. Legal Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Sohu.

        The article notes: "李金章的夫人黄敏慧也是一位大使，2011年12月20日，黄敏慧被任命为中国驻秘鲁大使。2015年，黄敏慧的大使生涯即将进入尾声，5月下旬初的数日之间，中国民众都从电视上见到了这位清痩的中国女大使。一连数日，黄敏慧大使屡屡发声，她的名字广泛地出现在中国各大报纸和网络媒体上。... 黄敏慧曾是自1971年中国和秘鲁正式建交44年以来，中国派出的第13位大使，也是中国派驻南美洲国家的第1位女大使。... 中国驻巴西大使李金章只比夫人黄敏慧大使年长1岁，... 李金章和黄敏慧夫妇都是西班牙语高翻出身。在近10年的最初外交生涯里，夫妇俩曾给党和国家领导人邓小平、李先念、杨尚昆、万里、胡耀邦、赵紫阳等做过翻译。"

        From Google Translate: "Li Jinzhang's wife Huang Minhui is also an ambassador. On December 20, 2011, Huang Minhui was appointed as the Chinese ambassador to Peru. In 2015, Huang Minhui's ambassador's career was about to come to an end. In the early days of early May, the Chinese people saw the Qingye Chinese Ambassador from TV. For a few days, Ambassador Huang Minhui repeatedly spoke, and her name appeared widely on major Chinese newspapers and online media. ... Huang Minhui used to be the 13th ambassador sent by China to China and Peru in 1971, and the first female ambassador to the Chinese country in South America. ... Chinese ambassador to Brazil Li Jinzhang is only one year older than his wife Huang Minhui, ... Li Jinzhang and Huang Minhui are both Spanish-speaking. In the first diplomatic career in the past 10 years, the couple had translated the party and state leaders Deng Xiaoping, Li Xiannian, Yang Shangkun, Wanli, Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang, etc."

    2. Additional sources that cover Huang Minhui's participation in events. These sources contribute less to notability but provide enough information about the activities she did as an ambassador to contribute to notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The sources:
      1. "综合消息：中国一些驻外使领馆举行新春招待会" [Comprehensive news: Some Chinese embassies and consulates in China hold the New Year enrollment meeting] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2012-01-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27.

        The article notes: "中国驻秘鲁大使黄敏慧举行新春招待会，秘鲁外交部长龙卡略洛、文化部长佩拉诺、内政部长洛萨达等政府官员、各界友好人士、在秘华侨华人和中资企业代表近３００人出席。"

        From Google Translate: "Huang Minhui, the Chinese ambassador to Peru, held a Spring Festival enrollment. Peruvian Foreign Minister Long Carolo, Minister of Culture Paramo, and the Minister of the Interior Losanda, friendly people from all walks of life, nearly 300 representatives of the secret overseas Chinese and Chinese -funded enterprises attended."

      2. "贾桂德候任驻秘鲁大使 曾多次出席国际事务会议" [Jia Guide was waiting for the Ambassador to Peru and had attended many international affairs conferences]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Sohu.

        The article notes: "而此前担任中国驻秘鲁大使的黄敏慧已在一周前举行了离任招待会。据中国驻秘鲁大使馆官网信息，（6月）23日晚，黄敏慧大使在官邸举行离任招待会。黄大使深情回顾了在秘鲁度过的近四年时光，向秘政府和各界友人的大力支持表示感谢。她在致辞中强调，中秘全面战略伙伴关系近年来得到深入发展，两国各领域合作成绩喜人，她很荣幸成为见证人。黄敏慧是在2011年11月接替赵五一出任中国驻秘鲁大使一职。"

        From Google Translate: "Huang Minhui, who had previously served as the Ambassador of China in Peru, had held a leaving enrollment a week ago. According to information on the official website of the Chinese Embassy in Peru, on the evening of the 23rd, Ambassador Huang Minhui held a departure enrollment at the official residence. Ambassador Huang looked back at the nearly four years spent in Peru and thanked the secret government and friends from all walks of life. In her speech, she emphasized that the comprehensive strategic partnership of China Secrets has been developed in recent years, and her cooperation in various fields of the two countries is honored. She is honored to be witnesses. Huang Minhui replaced Zhao Wuyi as the position of Chinese ambassador to Peru in November 2011."

      3. "China's ambassador hails cooperation ties with Peru". Andina. 2014-09-09. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27.

        The article notes: "Chinese ambassador in Lima, Huang Minhui, stressed the excellent relations between Peru and China and said ... The Asian senior official also took part in the awarding ceremony to honor indigenous leader Ruth Buendía ..."

      4. "Embajadora de la República Popular China en el Perú recorrió ciudadela de Caral" [Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in Peru toured Ciudadela de Caral] (in Spanish). Andina. 2012-01-27. Archived from the original on 2023-11-27. Retrieved 2023-11-27.

        The article notes: "La embajadora de la República Popular China en Perú, Huang Minhui, visitó la ciudadela de Caral, considerada la civilización más antigua de América (5,000 años) y Patrimonio Cultural de la Humanidad por la Unesco, informó hoy el Gobierno Regional de Lima. ... Psoteriormente, la embajadora fue recibida por el presidente regional de Lima, Javier Alvarado, quien agradeció su visita y la invitó a recorrer otros atractivos turísticos de las provincias limeñas."

        From Google Translate: "The Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in Peru, Huang Minhui, visited the Citadel de Caral, considered the oldest civilization in America (5,000 years) and Cultural Heritage of Humanity for UNESCO, the Regional Government of Lima reported today. ... Subsequently, the ambassador was received by the regional president of Lima, Javier Alvarado, who thanked her visit and invited her to tour other tourist attractions of the Lima provinces."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Minhui (simplified Chinese: 黄敏慧; traditional Chinese: 黃敏慧) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There appears to be enough coverage to meet notability. I added some additional details and sources. Others with a better understanding of Chinese and Peruvian sources can add more at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Addition of information by Rublamb and 180app has clearly demonstrated notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Chamberlain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ryan Chamberlain (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)

Biography of a living person notable only for one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 08:50, 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 merge‎ to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. There is coverage, but not enough to sustain a separate article in the face of NOTNEWS and NOPAGE. No one is arguing the massacre should not be covered, the question was where. With respect to the target, noting, however, that should editorial consensus change to Ein HaShlosha as a target, that is fine. The consensus is not to maintain a standalone, however there is not a particular consensus on a target. Star Mississippi 18:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ein HaShlosha massacre[edit]

Ein HaShlosha massacre (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)

As with several other pages on less prominent components of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this page is unnecessary, not notable as a standalone event and should be deleted or merged back into the parent, which still only holds 24kB of readable prose, yet has been a source for far too many unnecessary child articles. This page's issues are compounded by its poor quality sourcing and fuzzy detail - as the page itself notes, the facts "are largely unknown" - and Haaretz stands alone as the only WP:RSP in sight. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -
-The massacre has been featured in international press.
-The massacre is worth mention. In 2023 Israel-Hamas war page, there is ALWAYS talk of making new articles since the article is to big. Therefore we should not delete pages created on the subject that take off some of the load from the main article.
-This page exists in 9 different languages on Wikipedia.
-Regarding sources, Citations in regards to the occurence:
[12] - Specifically on Kibbutz (News from UK)
Spanish - [13] [14]
French - [15]
Russian - [16],
More: [17][18],[19],[20] (there are more Hebrew sources, but I think my point is clear). Homerethegreat (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding merger, Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre#Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre
This has already been discussed, and from what I saw, it's been opposed. So it must be an independent article. Regarding quality of source and adding more sources. Here above I added plenty, and also in the page article itself there are already sources other than Haaretz. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If unclear in regards to the Oppose I wrote above. My meaning is Keep article. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ein HaShlosha. There are only 176 words even though fine details are provided. It would go perfectly well, and be easier to find, as a single section in the article on the kibbutz, which is also quite short. Zerotalk 12:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be merged there too, but it's more obvious direct parent is the overarching page on the attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre#Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre
    This has already been voted on, and the result was against merger. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That merger discussion hasn't been closed, and maybe never be. There appears to be no consensus. It was based on a different target, i.e.: 2023 Israel–Hamas war, which I agree is a nonsensical target since it's already overlength. Many of those opposed cited that as a reason. Here, the merge option presented is to a different target that has no such problems. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in article and above show this is clearly notable. BEFORE showed even more, but the above and in article sources are more than enough to show this meets WP:GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The articles 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and 2023 Israel–Hamas war are already quite long. There are relevant details about many massacres (Re'im, Kfar Aza, Sderot, Be'eri, Netiv Ha'asara, Holit, Nir Oz and more), featured in international press. This calls for dedicating an article, even short ones, to each of these massacres. --GidiD (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GidiD: What are you saying? 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is exceptionally short and underdeveloped, with only 24kB of readable prose - well below the length for WP:TOOBIG concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This is a premature request for merge: Sadly, the 2023 conflict is an ongoing event, and probably all related articles would evolve as more facts are uncovered.
    2. The article size you refer to (WP:TOOBIG) is just a rule of thumb, and other concerns may be more important. Further, there are many wiki articles with prose much shorter than 50K referencing sub-topics.
    3. Prose size < 150 words would clearly require merging WP:SIZERULE- which is not the case here. And see also 1. GidiD (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Ein HaShlosha. Better contextualized there. Of course there're sources; there's probably news articles on every Israeli rocket strike on Gaza, but we don't ahem articles on them for the same reason. AryKun (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Homerethegreat. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Ein HaShlosha per the rationale articulated at Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre. There are at least nine articles about the various massacres that took place on October 7. Some of them are quite long and detailed and should remain standalone articles. But many others, including this one, are merely single-paragraph stubs that have demonstrated that they will not be expanded any time soon. Readers will have a much easier time accessing information about this attack and others if it is covered in an article about the attacks broadly as opposed to many poor-quality and stubby individual articles that readers are less likely to find.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30/500 Note The closer will have to ensure that all participants in this discussion are extended confirmed per WP:ARBECR as such restrictions apply to Israel-Palestine / Arab-Israeli conflict articles per WP:ARBPIA4. I tried my best to strike ineligible !votes myself in the last discussion, but I unfortunately don't have enough time on my hands to do it myself again.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have checked and everyone is as of right now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree with Homerethegreat who mentioned the arguments I wanted to bring up anyway.
Elie goodman (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who'd prefer a Merge. As far as I can see, all participants here are extended confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sadly, this event is very notable, and articles branching from the 2023 Israel-Hamas war page can help keep the main article from growing too lengthy. TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Homerethegreat. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Homerethegreat. We can revisit this in a year if some doubt this will be of enduring notability.VR talk 05:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and to Ein HaShlosha. Notable as it is, there's just not enough here to warrant a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge As far as I see, merging the mentioned page to an appropriate article might be better; because it doesn't seem to be necessary to have an independent article for this subject. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After looking at sources [21], it appears this page can be significantly expanded because a lot of details are missing. Moreover, this is a developing event. For example, what was/will be the fate of hostages taken from Ein HaShlosha by the militants? This alone will make a story. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Not every component of this atrocious attack is independently notable. It is far WP:TOOSOON to tell which crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged (as shown by the paucity of info in this article) and in-depth analysis does not exist yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED other than in passing mentions (and those are in primary sources). This falls in WP:EVENTCRIT #4, an horrific act that is (and should be) covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented incident in a historically notable run of attacks. I see no reason even to propose removal of such incidents. Mistamystery (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - if this article is not necessary due to raised concerns, why is the nominator creating articles such as Beit Rima massacre about events of the same scale, with Ein ha-Shlosha being obviously more documented as massacre and showing intentional killing of civilians rather than collateral damage in Beit Rima including militants. Fraankly I find both not notable enough, but would be happy to get an answer whether this is a systemic bias of the nominator.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly odd that an editor would create one article, and nominate a similar one for deletion. But there's nothing improper about it. Editors change their mind, or wish to solicit debate about the necessity of such articles. I wouldn't rush to assume bad faith or a systematic bias. Let's discuss each article on merits alone, without pulling the author's or AfD nominator's history into the discussion. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You would do well not to project motives on other editors (advice I struggle at time to take). We are building an encyclopaedia; to do that we work on articles, not editors. Also, arguing against an article based on other articles is both dangerous water and explicitly recommended as something NOT to do. See WP:WHATABOUT.
    I also have a two-fold answer for your question. First, that article is also in AfD right now and I don't think it passes WP:NEVENT with its existing sourcing. I would delete both, but for different reasons. Second, that has zero to do with this article. It has different issues as well as a viable parent article for the overall event. The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is encyclopaedic and already has strong secondary sources (something that simply cannot be said for each individual atrocity that the event comprises, like the subject of this AfD). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. This event is a significant part of history and provides valuable information for those seeking to understand the complexities of the region’s past. The article is well-sourced, providing multiple references to verify the information presented. It adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality, presenting facts without taking a side. Deleting this article would be a loss to the Wikipedia community and its readers worldwide. Therefore, I urge the moderators to consider the educational value and relevance of this article in their decision-making process. דור פוזנר (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this minor article into Ein HaShlosha article, will sit better there than anywhere else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ein HaShlosha as not significant enough for an individual page. Freinland (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This happened. this article shouldn't be deleted to favor ones bias, attempt to deny it happened. User:Iskandar323 has shown systemic bias against Israel on every, article posted about the Hamas Attack on Israel. on Every page he's asking to either rename articles from "massacres" to "attacks" to lessen the crimes the group has committed, and here again, he's attempting to do the same. in breach of WP:BIASCViB (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Struck non-EC comment per WP:ARBECR. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, WP:BIAS is about systemic bias, not about accusing fellow editors of personal bias which is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Second, It does not require a bias (in either direction) to support or oppose a position based on policy and reliable sources. Once, just once, I'd like to see a civil discussion in Middle East topics that does not end up with folks implying racist motives on pro-this or anti-the-other editors. We're here to build an encyclopaedia; if everyone can't leave their bigotry at the door, we will fail. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this is best covered in the parent article. I find myself in agreement with Last1in's comment above. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Penthouse Pets[edit]

List of Penthouse Pets (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 strikes me as inherently problematic. There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named. BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Popular culture. BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - FYI as far as article creator User:MutterErde: "This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notification of the article creator is automatic, but I don't think that weighs into the propriety of the article itself one way or the other. BD2412 T 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards keep as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself. Biofase flame| stalk  00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't (and shouldn't) have a freestanding List of Hustler Honeys or List of Gallery Girls Next Door or List of Genesis centerfold models, or any of the other magazines in the genre outside of the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, which contains a substantially higher caliber of notability of its membership (despite also having a dearth of sources). The obvious problem is that the list is unencyclopedic in the first place. BD2412 T 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to keep it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old "wikipedia is not..." argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time. Biofase flame| stalk  20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      According to deletion policy, reasons for deletion include articles that are not encyclopedic according to WP:NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly unverified list of people who are not well-known. Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself.
      Actually just did a quick google search and "penthouse magazine" returns about 30m results while "penthouse pets" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me. Biofase flame| stalk  21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - including per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because WP:NLIST notability of the group does not appear supported by independent and reliable sources. WP:NLIST also does not appear to support inclusion of a list of the notable subjects in the Penthouse (magazine) article because of the lack of support for the notability of the group. Beccaynr (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep penthouse pets are mentioned many times in media and independent sources like 1 2 3 4 etc. This topic seems pretty notable to me.
    Polarbear678 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting notability. The first source is a Youtube video of a "The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977" interview by the CBC, posted in 2010 and described as "In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable. Polarbear678 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment). BD2412 T 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a mistake. I just updated it. Polarbear678 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the organizations and companies notability guideline, which has a focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about no inherited notability, e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. Looks like fancruft with an extra flavour of female objectification. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is exactly one other such publication that is as notable as Penthouse, as Biofase correctly points out, and indeed we have a List of Playmates of the Month article for that one. References to Pets of the Month are numerous, including in reliable secondary sources. I don't accept the nom's slippery slope argument. The Hustler Honeys or the Genesis centerfolds have nowhere near the notability of those who appeared in Playboy or Penthouse. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you (or anyone) provide examples of reliable secondary sources to support the notability of the group? Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Penthouse Pets are not at the same level as Playboy Playmates. A significant number of men could probably name a Playmate (even if inaccurately in the case of Marilyn Monroe), while few could identify a Pet. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:KITCHENSINK. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TarnishedPathtalk 10:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is 18 years old and averages over 1000 pageviews a day. Because of the subject matter, some editors have never preferred this type of content. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX (August 2021). Whether we want to have this content is ultimately a value judgment, because no one is debating whether the magazine is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Milowent: Yes, the magazine is notable. I have no objection to content on the concept of the "Penthouse Pet" being included in the article, Penthouse (magazine), including a list of notable persons so designated, but there is strangely almost nothing in the article on the magazine about this subject (two lines in the lede, nothing at all in the body). BD2412 T 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Unless more robust independent sourcing can be found, I don't think the article in its current state is worth keeping. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas R. Bush[edit]

Douglas R. Bush (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 a test case: I don't believe being the United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Like I said, this is a test case. If successful, Jette and the other Assistant Secretaries are next for AfD. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources found are all to military websites; article here reads like a resume/CV, not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Military acquisition, like relevance and readiness, is a niche topic, which rarely reaches the mainstream often enough to warrant coverage there, unless it's Ukraine, etc.[1]: 3:53-12:44 
    The 6th ASA(ALT) (pronounced A-salt) knew his place in the process How the Army Runs (HTAR).[2]: diagram on p.559  This ref[1] shows that 7th ASA(ALT) also knows How the Army Runs (HTAR).[2]: diagram on p.559 [1] That says something about Army relevance, and about power projection (future readiness). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much in terms of independent, reliable coverage on the actual subject which is needed to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ancheta Wis - wolf 12:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c Center for Strategic and International Studies (23 Mar 2023) Pressing Challenges to U.S. Army Acquisition: A Conversation with Hon. Douglas R. Bush
  2. ^ a b United States Army War College and Army Force Management School (2019-2020) How the Army Runs HTAR: A senior leader reference handbook which synthesizes "existing and developing National, Defense, Joint, and Army systems, processes, and procedures currently practiced"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am ultimately surprised at my own vote here. There simply is not enough independent, in-depth coverage of this incredibly accomplished person. Ultimately, I don't think GNG can be met here. In the future, I would just bundle nominations like this.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split between deleting and keeping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It might be more appropriate to delete it, since it needs to portray a more related source(s) to show its notability/independence... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the independent and significant coverage from reliable sources that would be needed per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The only ones that are even broadly independent are the two Breaking Defence stories, and of those ref #4 has no analytical content about the subject (the only things about him specifically are quotes, i.e. non-independent) while ref #2 is your run-of-the-mill "X was appointed as Y" announcement thing. Nor does there appear to be any more specific notability guideline that would be relevant. I'll also note that vague hand waving about how the AAE is needed to win, if anything, just demonstrates how there doesn't seem to be any policy-based argument for keeping this. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have nominated four of seven other officeholders for deletion (excepting two generals and a member of the National Academy of Engineering). Three are bundled together, while Bruce Jette has been nominated separately because he survived a 2018 Afd (the arguments there seem inadequate to me). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:39, 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 merge‎ to Energy-efficient driving. As it seems from the discussion here that such a merge has already taken place, the history must remain for fulfillment of attribution requirements regardless of the redirect's utility. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Car speed and energy consumption[edit]

Car speed and energy consumption (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)

Essay. The article is a high school level analysis of air drag, with plenty of OR, and is factually incorrect to boot. See also this discussion. Fermiboson (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. Fermiboson (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • the presented analysis actually is slightly above secondary education level in the Netherlands, so above high school level in the US: there rather on the level of first year university physics. The analysis is meant to be accessible to advanced high school students, within the scope of the Wikipedia mission.
    • "plenty of OR", probably meaning "plenty of Original Research", is factually incorrect, as the complete argument in the article was condensed from the referenced book/website of MacKay, Science Advisor to the UK Department of Energy 2009-2014.
    • submitter of this deletion proposal wrote on 19 November on her/his talk page "in short, I’m not disputing the factuality of the derivations in the article, but WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies.", so she/he apparently retracted the complaint of "incorrectness to boot". I am correcting the textbook style i hope satisfactorily for all, by comparing the article with, e.g., Drag (physics). Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fuel economy in automobiles. While the analysis presented in this article leaves much to be desired, the topic itself is notable enough to be included as a section in the proposed target. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the merit in merging content that has to be fixed wholesale before merging, rather than writing from scratch whatever we don't already have in the suggested target article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Fermiboson @Ldm1954 The physics is incorrect? No, everybody, also the referenced nice papers by Kenneth Holmberg et al. (2012, 2013), agrees we have 1. acceleration, 2. air drag, and 3. further friction, and the applicable formulae. The quoted "5% air drag" holds only at constant 60 km/h, while the wikipedia article considered the quadratic effect over a range of low and high speeds. It is irrelevant for the thrust of the article: there is basically a quadratic dependence on speed of energy consumption, everybody agrees on that. The source of the Wikipedia article is the report by professor MacKay, official scientific adviser to the British government, the book Sustainable energy without the hot air 2008, free online www.withoutthehotair.com. We can easily incorporate the results of Holmberg et al. in this Wikipedia article. Merging? the article with other long articles muddles the arguments both ways, the TooLongDidNotRead effect.
    • Wikipedia needs a relatively simple article on the vital subject of energy consumption by cars and the effect of speed, right? Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should have an article, but only if it is correct. The current Wikipedia page states:
    "At higher speed the energy consumption of a car per unit distance increases proportional to the square of the speed. This is caused by the air drag which dominates over the tyre rolling resistance at high speeds."
    This is misleading as it is focusing on the 5% contributions, and ignoring the dominant 95% internal loses due to friction in the engine/transmission and also the efficiency of the engine etc as a function of speed.
    Delete, and perhaps @Hansmuller will write an accurate version that includes all terms Ldm1954 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion which i followed up. The dominant contribution of heat losses at low to moderate speeds has been included in the article. At high speeds however, air drag losses exceed other losses, refer to Graph 3 and the discussion in the article. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge Delete I've edited Energy-efficient driving to include those parts of the subject article I consider notable.
The case presented against this article is weak.
  • The case claims is is "high-school level analysis"; the audience of Wikipedia includes high-school level readers.
  • The case claims WP:OR citing no examples.
  • The case claims the article is factually incorrect citing a discussion which includes exactly one -- disputed -- claim of incorrect content.
  • In the linked discussion the "tone" of the article was disliked. It seems to me to be a completely typical Wikipedia article.
  • The case did not make the claim that the topic was not notable or otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia.
It is possible that only a minimal case was presented because it was assumed that everyone will vote delete.
The major issues I see with the article are
  1. Title seems a bit non-encyclopedic.
  2. Relies primarily on a single source
  3. Contains disputed claims.
These are all issues that can be repaired. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton and also @Hansmuller, please look at Fuel economy in automobiles#Energy considerations. This has a comprehensive list of the energy consumption contributions, which is far larger than the two in Car speed and energy consumption. You can also look at the similar information in Speed and fuel economy studies, and the comparable article in Energy-efficient driving plus there are numerous Google searchable articles from organizations such as AAA, RAC, DOE as well as popular science articles. The energy consumption is a very well-trodden topic, being a balance between $$$ for simple steels compared to superalloys or refractory metals versus engine efficiency, drive train and related frictional losses and other contributions such as drag and rolling friction. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said on the physics talk page, comparing this article to Fuel economy in automobiles is off base. I think the thrust of the article is actions existing drivers can take. Merging this content into Energy-efficient driving on the other hand, would be a win. That article is more comprehensive and yet it has no reference to Mackay or to Holmberg et al The vehicle speed section is weak compared with this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working at it, thanks.Hansmuller (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the physics is sound, according to the MacKay source and further literature. The referenced Holmberg/Erdemir articles , incorrectly used for refutation, actually support the Wikipedia article:

1. Holmberg et al. / Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars / Tribology International 47 (2012) 221–231 agree with this Wikipedia article, they state on page 223:

"The external air drag is the air resistance of the car when it moves on the road. It is proportional to the square of the driving speed and directly related to the size and shape of the vehicle, usually expressed as a multiplication of the drag coefficient by the projected front area [34,35]. In this study, 60 km/h is assumed as an average driving speed for all cars globally in urban, highway, and any other kind of driving.". Holmberg et al. do not further address the effect of speed.

2. Holmberg et al., Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars, transportation and industry, STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, USA, 5-9.5.2013, echo the MacKay argument for a quadratic dependence on speed on their pages 8 and 9, with graphs similar to MacKay we can use as reference in the article, and refine the argument on other sources of friction.

Air drag losses dominate at high speeds, Holmberg/Erdemir agree.

Thanks for considering this matter, important for traffic air pollution vs. car speed as well, Hansmuller (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Hansmuller for going so long without replying. I will respond to his points both on my tp and here below.
In summary, my argument is not just that the article currently is an essay, although it undoubtedly is (I can elaborate more on this if need be but don't see the need right now), but that it can be nothing but an essay, under the area that the title delineates.
With regard to the factual accuracy claim, I based it entirely upon Ldm1954's looking into the source paper, for which I would also like to apologise as I should have done more extensive research myself. That said, while maybe "factually inaccurate" is not the most precise term, I do think that the article cannot be written in a manner where due weight is given. Since car speed is such a minor portion of the efficiency of automobiles (this part I think everyone here agrees with), any article that talks about only the impact of car speed is going to create an impression of disproportionate impact. In any case, that is not my main point, and if you still want me to remove "factually inaccurate" I am open to doing so.
The article currently cites two papers. One of these papers talks about a factor of energy consumption independent of speed, and the other is essentially an appendix to a popular policy document (which to be fully honest looks self-published to me, but I don't see anything wrong with the content so let's roll with it.) Everything else is a textbook, relating to the elementary derivation of the v^2 formula for air resistance (and other forms of resistance). We can cut all of that and simply cite the proportionality to the papers involved since there is no need to piece together our own derivation when the result is accepted. (Notable pieces of OR that would be cut include, for example, "energy consumption over a distance" section.) We are then essentially left with:
  • A reproduction of the proportions of modes of energy loss from said paper;
  • A reproduction of a graph of energy loss vs velocity from two papers;
  • A description of the trend represented in such graphs.
Note moreover that:
  • A dependence of efficiency on speed is not the major focus of the one paper that actually mentions it.
  • The experimental results from aforementioned paper have nothing to do with the v^2 dependence.
With this in mind, what can the article actually say? "Theoretically, energy consumption scales as v^2. Because of 'various factors', this doesn't actually happen at all (see graph). Also, it turns out other things have far more impact on energy consumption than car speed does, so it doesn't actually matter that much unless you're on a highway." If we have to mention all kinds of different factors not included in the title to have an article, then essentially throw our hands up and say "see results here, which we can't predict, but doesn't matter anyways", why not simply do all that at the place where this is already done? Fermiboson (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional notes, as the above message was getting clunkier and clunkier with every note I tried to add and edit into it:
  • There are still claims I consider factually inaccurate in the article. For example:
    • The graph captions and text don't really mention the fact that there is a large mismatch between v^2 predictions and actual data. I personally had to read through the thing three times, and the associated source twice, before I figured out what was going on.
    • That air pollution is proportional to the speed squared. Neglecting how ill defined "air pollution" is (total emitted pollutants? Pollutant concentration?), the statement "air pollution increases with petrol consumption" is unsourced, and off the top of my head I can think of several factors (such as increased combustion temperatures at high engine rpms) that could change the speed dependence of total amount of air pollutants emitted.
  • I think that there is a possibility for the article to merit a keep, if we are able to find sources to cover some of the following:
    • Popular misconceptions about the dependence of energy consumption on speed
    • Adjustments that car designers make to control the dependence of energy consumption on speed
    • The effects of speed limits, or other forms of speed control, on roadside pollution, gas consumption etc in certain areas.
These would allow the article to instead talk about the way the speed dependence influences other factors, which would not require any synthesis. With a cursory search I have not been able to find any. Fermiboson (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fermiboson Sorry, but please put these kinds of comments on Talk:Car_speed_and_energy_consumption.
  • If an item in the article is incorrect and unreferenced, correct it or delete it.
  • If an item in the article is incorrect and referenced, find another reference or let it go.
  • If an item in the article is incorrect don't threaten to delete.
There are lots of reasons to delete but none of them include incorrect items. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should delete the article because things are incorrect, I am arguing that we should do so because there is nothing left that isn't either essay or reproduction of information after those things are removed. I pointed out several factual inaccuracies because @Hansmuller asked me to do so on my tp. Fermiboson (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Fermiboson. My opinion of the article is that it will mislead readers because it only considers the very minor terms, not the big ones. Consider the two main Figures, Graph 1 and Graph 2. From Graph 1 I should drive at 30 km/h or less. From Graph 2 I should drive a Prius at 30 km/h or less, and not buy a BMW which does not obey anything in the article.
If I now go to an authoritative source such as https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312 or the full data at https://tedb.ornl.gov/ a different picture emerges. Three key points:
  • Engine efficiency is not linear, in many cases it increases with speed if we ignore frictional losses, see for instance http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/237/1/012011 (as just a source I pulled quickly).
  • Frictional losses in cars are not speed independent, it is much more complicated than this, see for instance https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants7050039. This is lubrication science, and not a simple high-school problem. At low speed you can have boundary lubrication; at higher speeds you transition to lower friction and hydrodynamic lubrication, see Stribeck curve. You also have to worry about viscosity changes with engine temperature etc.
  • Rolling resistance is not so simple, see the decent article on it. You can always purchase low rolling resistance tires.
We already have a good article at Energy-efficient driving which is far more detailed. I see no reason for this article to exist. Energy efficiency, engine efficiency and lubrication are not simple topics.
For fun, something you won't find clearly spelt out here or elsewhere. A few years ago as an experiment a German automobile company worked on a very clean and efficient automobile engine, so there would be no particulates in the engine to lead to wear or frictional losses. The result, horrible. It turned out that they made it so clean that there was no graphitic material being produced inside the engine, and graphitic materials are good solid lubricants. Tribology is complex. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your posts with these detailed references make a compelling case that this topic is WP:Notable. Again the accuracy of the article should be discussed in the Talk page.
The graph in [22] makes the important point that the graphs that MacKay chose are not the ones that are important to drivers. What counts for drivers is mpg vs speed, not energy vs speed. And the graphs on energy.gov show that the speed effect is much less dramatic once you factor in the miles gained at higher speed.
I disagree that Energy-efficient driving is a good article. For example, the mpg effect per the energy.gov example is not discussed. It needs work and we should encourage improvements.
In my opinion this overall approach of dumping on the article does not improve Wikipedia. Our goal should be better articles and telling editors their work stinks and should be deleted the worst way to accomplish that goal. The most you can accomplish that way is the deletion of one small article that everyone agrees is flawed and driving away the editor. Big deal. If on the other hand you ask what can we do to guide an editor towards better contributions, that editor may go on to make improvements over time. Since all of the dumping takes time I don't see any real cost of a more positive approach. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will agree to disagree. I am not an expert on automobiles and lubrication, I have only collaborated with people who are for ~20 years. My focus has been more on nanotribology, so I only know the applied results from conferences and general relevance in papers/proposals. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo[edit]

Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (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 POV DAB that doesn't meet guidelines or provide readers any meaningful navigation. No objection to a redirect to War crimes in the Kosovo War or a consensus target  // Timothy :: talk  09:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see how this page is POV, it simply offers redirects for the user to different ethnic cleansing campaigns that took place within Kosovo throughout the 20th century. If you could elaborate on your concerns about the DAB, I'd be happen to discuss this dispute in further detail. Yung Doohickey (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While War crimes in the Kosovo War is indeed the most likely target for those typing "Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo" into the search box, the DAB is helpful, and doesn't present an obvious POV, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful dab and not POV imo. AryKun (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is not a dab page at all, just an WP:OR collection of articles that violates WP:DABCONCEPT: "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page." All the links are "instances or examples". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily see what qualifies as OR in this DAB. The rule you've provided, if applicable, would turn this page into an article, and it wouldn't need to be deleted. Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I can reasonably imagine at least a few people every year searching for the term while thinking of a particular campaign of ethnic cleansing. The entries all address ethnic cleansing in the region that is modern-day Kosovo. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Mindich[edit]

David Mindich (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. Every source is a passing mention, if not a single quote from Mindich. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WZHL[edit]

WZHL (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 rather razor-thin operational history of this radio station (and it hadn't "ceased broadcasting" by 2006 — that was when it was granted its construction permit; it was not licensed until 2011) leads me to believe that it probably wasn't around long enough to get anywhere near the significant coverage to meet the GNG. (The article does not even contain any information on what WZHL might have aired! Indeed, from 2009 to 2015 the edits were mostly maintenance and/or bots, with the transmitter coordinates being the most substantial addition.) A PROD was contested in 2019 at a time when this topic area hadn't yet completely moved away from the looser standards centered around the NMEDIA essay, which closes the books on any potential soft deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I doubt this would have even met the previous NMEDIA standards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I just checked the history of the page...and apparently I was the one who contested the 2019 PROD. To closer, please consider my !vote accordingly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed since my 2019 PROD. The station operated sporadically outside of a five-month period in 2012. The owner was Magnolia Radio Corporation, which had a series of radio construction permits that mostly never went anywhere but receivership. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons.-Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:06, 30 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! 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lorainis Cruz[edit]

Lorainis Cruz (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 Cuban women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 04:55, 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 no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue elsewhere and doesn't require relisting with virtually nil participation. Star Mississippi 02:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement[edit]

Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement (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:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The reference from Today[1] and the reference from People[2] are both very reliable and solid references. This page is notable. It could surely be improved, but nominator has chosen to systematically nominate to delete any article I have submitted in a motivated approach or ulterior motive other than objectivity.Stravensky (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stravensky and think the article should be kept. The two sources above both pass the 5 primary WP:NCORP criteria. The today article is not the most substantive, more of a profile of the founder, but it makes more than a passing mention of the program and SEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.today.com/parents/sandy-hook-5-years-later-scarlett-lewis-s-road-healing-t119829
  2. ^ https://people.com/crime/rolling-with-lifes-ups-and-downs-can-stop-bullying-school-shootings/
  • Comment Both of those references indicate that Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement has been founded satisfying WP:V, but there are passing mention at best. That is best you can say about the organisation in these two references. Both of these references fail WP:SIRS. I'll go through the rest of the references later. scope_creepTalk 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be beneficial for anyone else to go through the references instead, given your apparent conflict of interest based on nominating any page submitted by me on the grounds of weak references when you clearly haven't yet reviewed any of the references. Stravensky (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "passing mention at best" is a long ways off, for anyone who actually reads either of the above articles which are in depth about Scarlett and Choose Love Movement. This is an obvious motivated action by someone who is motivated to delete my contributions without regard for objectivity. Stravensky (talk) 04:00, 16 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! 07:38, 19 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! 04:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Dover Corporation#Pumps and Process Solution. Daniel (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LaserWash[edit]

LaserWash (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 evidence of any notability for this brand name and product. Sources provided include the company's own web site and patent applications in the US and Ausraia. WP:BEFORE searches yields many promo sites, many with near identical copy "...has less moving parts..."(sic) but nothing independent and reliable that discusses the product. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:33, 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! 07:10, 19 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! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Found a couple of secondary sources, not sure about reliability: [23], [24]. The article as it currently exists is not very good, with primary and/or promotional sources only. Needs work. If the sources I provided are not reliable, then I would be fine with a delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (highly selective) into Dover Corporation#Pumps and Process Solution. The brand and the company can be mentioned in one sentence at Dover. It is owned by subsidiary OPW. Please also copy usable refs. gidonb (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Velella and User:WeirdNAnnoyed: can you both live with this solution? gidonb (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would address the current issue. Thanks.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both!!! User:Liz, you relisted this twice. Can you close it? gidonb (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ningpo massacre. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Pak[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Notability guidelines. This is an important figure only in regards to their role in the Ningpo Massacre, so I recommend to delete per WP:NOPAGE. SilverStar54 (talk) 08:28, 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! 07:10, 19 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! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Idk if relisting is required in this sort of circumstance, but given that this is (at least in my opinion) a non-notable article, there might not be any other editors interested in commenting. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:07, 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. Essentially, the arguments to delete are stronger, while several to keep are "weak". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Rajput[edit]

Nitish Rajput (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)

In principle, subscription counts (is a primary source) do not make one notable. Nor does wealth, revenue, and other size metrics. Fails WP:ENT, WP:GNG, Does not have sufficient coverage WP:SIGCOV in the reliable sources WP:RSP. Charlie (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draftify and wait for a few more sources. I'm hesitant to delete, since this person clearly has large influence, but the sources here are currently pretty shoddy. Perhaps he'll be WP:N soon? Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable right now Worldiswide (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rajput is a notable YouTuber and influencer who have millions of followers and mentioned on many reliable websites. I think he passes WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subscriber numbers do not establish notability. But a source analysis here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Having videos that get a lot of views is not an indicator that Wikipedia recognizes as establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only three pages in Gnews that come up, all appear to be that particular brand of Indian press coverage using the flowery language we see. I don't see notability. One he talks about various websites, others are the "meet the influencer" articles. Oaktree b (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This [28] and this [29] are typical Oaktree b (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep Although some of the sources are reliable, however, YouTube views and subscribers doesn't make someone notable for Wikipedia. Atighot (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:NEWSORGINDIA Economic Times seems to be mainly notable mention. Others are suspect Comintell (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Few citations i found in this article may pass SIGCOV. And Subject is notable for his controversial videos. WrestlersIndia (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kechaoda[edit]

Kechaoda (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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) A possible WP:SPA that solely participated in numerous AfD nominations I recently initiated, which raises significant doubts from the outset. -Charlie (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there just isn’t enough material here for an article. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Essilor. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signet_Armorlite[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Signet_Armorlite (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)

written like an ad; only includes one source which is a dead link; bringing page to comply with WP policies will likely require rewrite This is my first AfD, so I would appreciate feedback. Thanks Itanalot (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the firm isn’t mentioned in the article about the firm that acquired it, Essilor, supporting the view that it was not particularly significant. Perhaps mentioning it in the Essilor article and redirecting would be viable. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Essilor. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:05, 2 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! 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Adeem[edit]

Sahil Adeem (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. Gossip rags and primary catalogues, or content farms, are the only sources. Fermiboson (talk) 04:31, 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 merge‎ to M Dot R. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Red[edit]

Turn Red (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, and likely WP:NMUSIC as well. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One low chart placement alone would not cut it for NMUSIC if you ask me, and this song shows no other signs of notability that I could see. The only other coverage I could find was a page on the artist on Know Your Meme, and we don't regard that as a reliable source anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "low chart"? WP:NSONG never said any of such but that it may be notable if it charted, probably if there's WP:SIGCOV and/or enough news coverage, or a certificate and award/nomination. dxneo (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway redirect to M Dot R, and it peaked at 69 not 59. Nothing in RS whatsoever. dxneo (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo Low on the chart, as in not even in the top half and only for one week. A lot of songs can achieve that, but that doesn't mean it's an impressive or even notable chart run. Whether NSONG says anything about it or not, I still stand by it personally. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, unfortunately "personally" is not enough and does not override the WP:NSONG requirements. However, I doubt the article will see the light of the day, and I don't know why you voted del while there's a target page. dxneo (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Lex Luthor. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LexCorp[edit]

LexCorp (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)

Fictional company from DC universe. Our article is pure plot summary. My BEFORE failed to find much outside a master thesis. (It also seems there's a real-world company named such that we don't have an article about?). The concept was used few years ago in marketing for the movie Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (ex. [30]), but coverage is mostly about the movie, not the company, which is just a plot background. I suggest per WP:ATD-R to redirect this to the list of DC comics organizations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lex Luthor - The fictional company is pretty specifically only notable because it is the company owned/ran by Lex Luthor, and pretty much all sources that discuss it are doing so due to its links to Lex himself. Covering it as part of the overall topic of Lex simply makes the most sense per WP:NOPAGE. It looks like the current article is purely plot summary, and it looks like the fictional history of the corporation is already covered throughout the plot summaries on Lex's article. But, I have no objections to a light Merger of any information would make sense to be added to Lex's article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lex Luthor. It really isnt covered the much in that article, so a merge is better.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the Industrial sites section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lex Luthor I always prefer redirecting to appropriate subject articles rather than large lists. Rhino131 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - do not merely redirect -to Lex Luthor. Notability in this case would seem tied to the Luthor family, Lex in particular. This entity/creation goes back to the reboot/re-imagining of the Superman mythos in the late 1980s/the post-crisis era. - jc37 04:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lex Luthor per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lex Luthor. No separate notability from that topic, and has an obvious merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:08, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Girl Sets Out[edit]

A Girl Sets Out (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 Reliable source literally no nay single source provided. Nexovia (talk) 03:25, 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 merge‎ to List of DC Universe locations. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star City (comics)[edit]

Star City (comics) (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)

Fictional city from DC comics, setting for Green Arrow - but does not seem notable on its own. We have here just a plot summary + listing of apperancees, i.e. pure WP:FANCRUFT. My BEFORE fails to show anything better than [31], which seems to be a student paper (not a thesis - the best I can figure out it was just a course paper related to a blog - PopMeC Research Blog, since it is also part of the suggested citation in the pdf). I suggest redirecting either to Green Arrow or to the List of DC comics locations per WP:ATD-R. PS. Interested editors may want to know I also prodded an even worse IMHO article, Coast City. A redirect is always fine as I noted there, or we can have another AFD is someone thinks it merits it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue, see the already opened MfD entry. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Draft:Edward Daniel Davis[edit]

Draft:Edward Daniel Davis (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Edward Daniel Davis|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 reliable source. Nexovia (talk) 03:07, 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 02:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Alexander (disambiguation)[edit]

Wilhelmina Alexander (disambiguation) (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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. Also ping Shhhnotsoloud who seconded the PROD. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Republic of Artsakh#Transportation. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the Republic of Artsakh[edit]

List of airports in the Republic of Artsakh (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)

List article that has been a stub for about 10 years now with absolutely no chance of expansion and very questionable notability (there has been only one airport in Artsakh the entirety of its existence and it's never been used). Most of the useful content here is already covered/duplicated in the main Republic of Artsakh article under the Transportation section and in the Stepanakert Airport article. Dan the Animator 01:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in the Republic of Artsakh[edit]

List of football stadiums in the Republic of Artsakh (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 list with no possibility for expansion and has duplicate content from another wiki article (List of football stadiums in Azerbaijan). This list also doesn't cite any sources and has had a notability orange tag for almost 3 years. Dan the Animator 01:40, 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. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State–Temple football rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Penn State–Temple 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)

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY. Previous AfD closed as delete but the sourcing is not enough to meet the notability thresholds. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a real rivalry, they're just both public schools in the same state so there may be some comment on it. But when they don't play each other regularly and the series is entirely non-competitive, with one being in a second-tier conference, it's not something notable needing an article. Reywas92Talk 04:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lack of competitiveness or one team belonging to a Group of 5 conference does not mean it is not a rivalry. The sources say it is a rivalry. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so some in the media have called a rivalry because that's a fun word that gins up interest, but that doesn't mean we need an article that compiles results. A pair of schools is more likely to be called that if they are geographically close and play often, but that can apply to countless combinations of teams and it doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. Games being on the schedule another three years out doesn't change that. Reywas92Talk 02:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 18 sources describe the series as a rivalry. The lopsided aspect of the rivalry actually adds a notability aspect to the rivalry as per the sources. The series was renewed in 2018 with games planned for 2026 and 2027 and sources described it as a rivalry. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources seem to indiciate notability. glman (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: Which of the sources seem to indicate notability? I have an open mind, but I'm not seeing SIGCOV (i.e., in-depth coverage) of a rivalry in multiple, WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Cbl62 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 - Both the Temple News and the PSU Collegian say they are independent of their universities on their sites. For the Collegian it says The Daily Collegian, The Weekly Collegian and The Daily Collegian Online are published by Collegian Inc., an independent, non-profit corporation with a board of directors composed of students, faculty and professionals. and for Temple News it says The award-winning student publication, editorially independent of Temple, now publishes every Tuesday..KatoKungLee (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. These are student newspapers written and published by active and enrolled students of the two universities and not by professional journalists. Under long-established precedent, student newspapers are not WP:INDEPENDENT and don't count toward GNG. If the "rivalry" were truly notable we'd be seeing SIGCOV written by persons other than students. @WhatamIdoing: @JoelleJay: Do I have that right? 23:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions of a "rivalry" are not enough. We lack depth of coverage of this as a true, notable rivalry in reliable and independent sources (i.e., not Onward State or Daily Collegian as Wikipedia regards student newspapers aa not WP:INDEPENDENT). I also agree with User:Reywas92 that the lack of competitiveness (Penn State has dominated throughout the series history, winning 40 of 45 games) is a factor to be considered in evaluating whether this is a true rivalry. If someone can present actual SIGCOV of a rivalry in multiple independent, reliable sources, I'll reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - while one-sidedness certainly CAN exist in a rivalry, the sources in the article are either non-independent or passing mentions in routine coverage, therefore failing GNG. Frank Anchor 14:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somewhat on the fence but does not seem to have significant coverage and/or routine coverage as a rivalry when they play each other thus failing GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:26, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Zand[edit]

Benjamin Zand (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)

He fails WP:JOURNALIST and general notability. The article is a reference bomb of LinkedIn and other primary sources, which suggest material was lacking to get the article out there in the first place. I have evaluated all the source and found lack of notability and/or reliability, which suggest this is a run-of-the-mill journalist, not someone that stands out in his profession (see WP:JOURNALIST). Notability is not inherit from him being boyfriend of higher-profile journalist or working at BBC. Page created by Tommskdas, who was checked for a block

Sources for Benjamin Zand article
Source Comment
@BenjaminZand (2 February 2017). "It's my birthday I can eat tiny cakes whilst working on stories for Lebanese documentaries if I want to..." (Tweet) – via Twitter. not reliable, not independent
"'VICE' Isobel Yeung & the Guy She Might Get Married to; Oh! She's Not Gay". no inherited notability, tabloid-esque
Benjamin Zand on LinkedIn not reliable not independent
Ed Gove (6 February 2017). "8 steps to success: Journalist Benjamin Zand gives his tips on getting started". Royal Television Society. Routine interview, not independent
Britain First: The 'most dangerous far-right party'?. BBC News. 28 September 2015. Retrieved 7 May 2017 – via YouTube. Primary source
America is a stolen country. BBC News. 2 January 2015. Retrieved 7 May 2017 – via YouTube. Primary source, not independent
https://mediashift.org/2014/12/inside-bbc-pop-up-an-experimental-mobile-news-bureau/ Passing mention, no sigcov
Gabriel Rosenberg (22 January 2015). "BBC Pop-Up reports from small town America". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 7 May 2017. Interview (not independent). Coverage is not really about him, he is just presented as a journalist.
"BBC Pop Up: Benjamin Zand". BBC News. 28 November 2014. Retrieved 7 May 2017. Not independent
Anna Mae Ludlum (1 February 2015). "Q&A: BBC Pop-Up With Benjamin Zand". Arizona Daily Wildcat. Retrieved 7 May 2017. Not independent
"BBC Sounds - The Next Episode - Downloads" Not independent
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-cult-of-conspiracy-qanon Primary (a documentary)
Midgley, Carol (28 May 2019). "Thatcher: A Very British Revolution review — how the Iron Lady cleared her revolting cabinet". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 5 June 2019. No mention of zand
"C4's Chilling New Doc Profiles A Prolific U.S. Serial Killer That Almost Got Away". Bustle. Retrieved 5 June 2019. Article about his documentary. Presents him a bit and other documentaries he made but remains passing mention. Bustle has an unfavorable entry at WP:RS/P
"BBC Three - Is This Sexual Harassment?". BBC. Retrieved 2 June 2019. Not independent
World's Most Dangerous Cities with Ben Zand. BBC. 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018. A doc he made
R Kelly: Sex, Girls & Videotapes. BBC Three. 28 March 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018. A doc he made
Ben Allen (31 May 2018). "BBC3's R Kelly: The Sex Scandal Continues suggests that the singer's time is nearly up". Radio Times. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Couldn't access but does not look like this will mention him much
Trump: A Very British Welcome?. BBC Three. 16 July 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Not independent
Ben Zand: Cults, Gangs and God. BBC World News. 18 January 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Not independent, primary
"Ben Zand in new BBC series Cults, Gangs and Gods". Curtis Brown. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Passing mention only talks about the documentary being now available. No credited author to this source.
Dictatorland. BBC Three. Retrieved 22 September 2018. One of his documentaries
Africa's Billion Pound Migrant Trail at IMDb Not reliable
Lebanon Stories. BBC News Channel. 5 May 2017. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Not independent, primary.
(sources 31 to 36) His docs.
"The Secret World of Incels: UNTOLD". Channel 4. 7 November 2022. Retrieved 15 November 2022. His doc
"Television Journalism Awards 2016". Royal Television Society. 17 February 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2017. Minor award, no sigcov
बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on the source assessment table, there is no notability given. I can't find much more. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This I guess in HuffPost is ok [32], it doesn't really talk about the person, only talking about the Trump travel ban and how it affected him. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is the main problem I find. Articles are about the documentary premiere, his wife, him getting stuck at border but never about him. So the article was left to use LinkedIn and interviews to make his biography. So this suggest overall this person is not suitable for a biography. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially with the details of every source given to see if they are reliable enough for inclusion. Turns out that none are, so article cannot be retained. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is borderline. I've gone through the same thought process as nom but lean on the side of deeming the interviews by RTS and Arizona Wildcat admissible as independent secondary sources that confer notability. Deryck C. 11:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The Arizona Daily Wildcat is a student newspaper, so it would be a weak source to show notability (WP:RSSM). The only material in the RTS interview (that is not an answer by Zand):

    Benjamin’s career began while still at university where he launched a travel website, Informed Explorer and began producing video content. He is now the editor of BBC Pop Up, a mobile bureau which travels the world making current affairs documentaries, as well as a programme maker for Panorama, the BBC’s long running investigative series. Born in Liverpool and without any connections in journalism or the BBC, Zand has forced his way up through hard work and talent, and along the way he has picked up a lot of handy advice.

    That's why I think this is pretty weak to warrant a biography of him on here. Both are WP:INTERVIEWS, which usually don't count for notability in AfDs. And RTS source is published by the same people that gave him an award, so one can say is not independent. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald "Ron" Jones[edit]

Ronald "Ron" Jones (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 advertisement has survived 7 years in mainspace . Not seeing WP:SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. His original post was just his unsourced autobiography. The few cites listed were added by later editors. Even with that, nothing of substance comes up on a Google search, except to produce links for multiple others with similar names. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia — Maile (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The "diverse career as a versatile musician" reads as PR copy. I can't find mentions of this person. Some hits on the name for other people, mostly the actor from "This Is Us" that died. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Maile, fails WP:N in general. dxneo (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:N, as mentioned above. Ktkvtsh (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not too much coverage to meet notability.Royal88888 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:11, 30 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! 00:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Križaj[edit]

Izabela Križaj (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 is a Slovenian women's footballer. I am unable to find sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep some mentions are in Slovene media, but nothing too extraordinary (mostly regional sources, but also one from the national television). A09 (talk) 18:20, 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! 03:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


NeutralThe subject is a Slovenian women's footballer with regional sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 06:10, 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! 02:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not seem to pass WP:GNG criteria. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per A09. Young player withj ongoing international career with sources. Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please can those saying "keep" provide sources to demonstrate GNG? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: So far we have one UEFA and four NZS sources, so apart from them being the highest organization in association football there's hardly any connection of them with Križaj. As she's a woman, we could also include sources from zenskaliga.si, which is the website of the primary association for woman football in Slovenia (presuming it's RS): 1, 2, 3. There's also some local coverage: team change, her playing FIFA on the national TV and more passing mentions as a result of her scoring. A09|(talk) 16:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: For future note, UEFA and the Football Association of Slovenia (NZS) would not be considered independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per A09. I echo that this article needs improvement, not deletion. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Rajendran[edit]

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

Sources in the article do not prove notability. A Google search does not return results that prove notability. Thus, this article fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Spinixster (chat!) 02:03, 19 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! 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This, I think it's the same person [33], several hits in local newspapers found by clicking on the "newspaper" link in the infobox for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be. Although she seems to have long hair in this, and based on Google images, she has short hair, so I'm not sure. Spinixster (chat!) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find useful sources, article should be deleted. I'll revisit if the article I linked in my other comment is the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 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 that this article subject is notable. If editors interested in this article could spend some time improving it and adding additional sources you have come across, that would be welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2)[edit]

Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2) (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 demonstration of notability —Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New Zealand. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I mean, the case happened and it's mentioned [34] but I don't find critical discussion of it... This reads like an essay written by someone in high school. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicking on the Gscholar link brings up law journals, but it's above my pay grade to try and understand what's discussed about the case. What do others thin? Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been online for 9 years before it has had its notability challenged. Given this and the fact that it has 2 law books cited n support and that it has been subsequently edited by several others, I believe meets notability in spades Kiwisheriff (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am a bit surprised as the paucity of sources showing online. This case was often mentioned in consideration of so-called Lemon Laws. Although the case's impact pretty well faded a soon as the 1993 CGA went into effect, notability does not expire. The subject is enclyclopaedic, sourced, and (at least during the 80s) sustained. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support for the article. However, I would argue that the legal concept of "merchantable quality" has not faded with the implementation of the CGA, as not only was this section under the SGA copied into the CGA, it actually enhanced it, by making it illegal to contract out of the law by the retailer, ie. "no refund" signs. Kiwisheriff (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Implied warranty would be a good candidate for expanding on the state of the NZ law, for anyone interested. — HTGS (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am surprised at a nomination that doesn’t address the two books cited, which, if they give reasonable coverage, would be sufficient alone to support notability. Then, as mentioned, the scholar links (eg [35]) add plenty of potential sourcing. Obviously the article’s current quality, nor the length it has existed do not affect the decision here. As some of us know well, NZ law is still underdeveloped on Wikipedia, but if it weren’t, I would support a merge up into the relevant area-of-law article. — HTGS (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. This case has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire periodical articles about this case: [36]. (There are also entire periodical articles about the concept of "merchantable quality" generally). James500 (talk) 01:30, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_26&oldid=1188202651"