Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 04	November 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norah Alupo[edit]

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

The subject, a Ugandan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uganda. JTtheOG (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than just the standard match report coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 12 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 23:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Mərzili[edit]

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

None of the sources mention an event known as Siege of Merzili nor do the pages Robert Abajyan and 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict mention this. A google scholar search turns up nothing either. Given that this page is almost entirely about Robert Abajyan, perhaps some of it could be incorporated into his page. Annwfwn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Since there's no reliable sources, and it can be reasonably incorporated into another article, there's no reason why it should remain a stub article. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer-mcdonell: when you wrote "Support", did you mean that you support deletion? Wikishovel (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, there isn't any proof that this "siege" ever existed or that 145 or any amount of soldiers similar to that died, the grammar is extremely bad, Robert Abajyan wasn't a commander, just a regular soldier, and it is extremely biased with words used like "invasion from Azerbaijan". Also, the guy that made this is an hardcore Armenian nationalist who only made this article to post it on TikTok (Link to the video: https://www.tiktok.com/@armen.patriot/video/7297010283418078496) and he also made another article similar to this one.

So yea, delete.

Salamghardash (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Large parts of the article are unsourced and this event may not have actually happened, per the above. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anta Dembele[edit]

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

The subject is a Senegalese women's footballer. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Senegal. JTtheOG (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasay City West High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NSCHOOL. Refs are to the school's facebook page (?) and/or are just dismal. Poster-child for non-notable. Content is mostly very poor. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources that are secondary, and its mostly original research. Qcne (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm unable to find any independent sources myself, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detete, I also could not find any independent sources with coverage of this school. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how you know that the content is very poor? How about the other Pasay City high schools in Wikipedia? I doing my job as a student, I already going around the school and teachers suggest me to edit the Wikipedia because it's outdated since 2022. I improve everything to contribute to our school. You must to go to school to see it personally (if you want. If not then no) or look for reliable sources like Facebook posts from the school and the website.

I did everything. And you can't find any independent sources from this school? You must see it first before you do everything.

The PASAY CITY WEST HIGH SCHOOL Wikipedia page was created in 2000's (I don't know who it is and when the creation) and i saw that many improvement in the page and i remove unnecessary things and updated with new one.

Also the update the GYMNASIUM under "Buildings" section should be updated because it being demolished and build a new building that the gymnasium placed at 5th floor but IT'S NOT because you did a deletion of the page.

I put references as I can to verify something.

Thank you for understanding. JustinLRT (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As my reply above, i did everything and I'm doing my own job to make people happy to see what going on in the school.

I don't forgot that I'm still having a grammar issue since I was Grade 8 (I'm Grade 10 now) and I'm still learning.

Please look the citations or references provided either the Facebook post or the official website to know it. JustinLRT (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And i forgot another one, THIS LINK make it more sources because there's have many images provided in the school. JustinLRT (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like building layouts, staff lists, class schedules and rules sections, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I changed it everything and I copied the wiki article of Pasay City North High School that only contains 3 sections: History, References, and external links.

But now, I already changed everything to few sections: History, Gallery, Incidents, References, and External links.

The incidents section I copied it from LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila) but it's completely different the content where the incident in the school are happened. The gallery is naturally placed if there's any photo related to the school.

I hope that the nomination for deletion will be undone. Thank you! JustinLRT (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Again Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. What you added was unsourced and wasn't neutrally written. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOLS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOLS. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 20:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also nominated Pasay City North High School for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasay City North High School. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only item mentioned under "Incidents" didn't even originate from the school. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you tell that the incidents are not originated from the school? JustinLRT (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the incident listed is an earthquake. Lavalizard101 (talk)
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also nominated Pasay City South High School for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasay City South High School. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possible sources to make use of. Mention in a national newspaper editorial about crowded classrooms. [1]. COVID related [2] and [3]. Notable alumnus Eumir Felix Marcial [4]. Snippet (maybe more) on the school being the first to benefit from the Adopt a High School Programme in 1986.[5].Rupples (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasay#Education. The article has been cleaned of overly detailed/OR content and promo, and isn't in bad shape. Perhaps not enough to keep on sourcing but it merits a brief passage in its locality. The school would be notable within Pasay City as it was established in 1949, not long after the country's independence and apparently two other existing high schools started as annexes of this one. Rupples (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator after additional sources have been provided which satisfy WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Polyamorph (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Perälä[edit]

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

Refs are interviews and profiles for a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the sources are reliable (e.g. https://ra.co/about / https://igloomag.com/about / http://anka.li/about / https://www.attackmagazine.com/about/ ) the coverage in depth. If you're waiting for the wall street journal to cover this subject you don't know electronic music. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is an artist who has released more music than any known artist on the planet, ever. If the wall street journal isn't interested in musical geniuses, how is that the artist's problem? Pam Embert (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not valid sources. I've never seen anybody post four about pages, expecting them to be taken as vaid references. scope_creep^Talk 05:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you could tell me what constitutes a reliable source so I can fix this, rather than it being taken down. There are plenty of sources about this artist out there, I just need guidance. Pam Embert (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something that passes WP:MUSICBIO, or perhaps some Finish language sources, reviews of albums in major Finish newspapers and magazines or secondary references from mainstream music sites that satisfy WP:MUSICRS. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of providing pointers to the about pages is to establish which of the sources used in the article are journalistic endeavours with editorial control, thus tending towards WP:RS. I can only suppose that you are being deliberately stupid, as a rhetorical flourish, in saying "I've never seen anybody post four about pages, expecting them to be taken as vaid references" The references are in the article, Scope Creep, as you well know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. So he qualifies for point 5 by releasing on Clone, Rephlex and TRIP. And he also qualifies for point 7.

5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

(Also, chuckling at how ignorant I was of the whole "notability" thing earlier. I get it now.) Pam Embert (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And according to WP:MUSICRS the sites listed are valid (pitchfork, Exclaim!, Resident Advisor, The Wire etc etc.) Pam Embert (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a very busy few days. I checked the references the first time around. We will through the references, to see what the WP:HEYMANN has lead to. Listing about pages doesn't necessarily the quality of the source for out purposes. scope_creep^Talk 18:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I've never heard of them" is not a valid reason to delete an article, and Tagishsimon please refrain from calling (y)our colleagues stupid. dxneo (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: Who stated they never heard of them, re above: scope_creep^Talk 14:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope_creep, you said "These are not valid sources. I've never seen anybody post four about pages, expecting them to be taken as vaid references." which is pretty much close to my statement since it seems like it was the first time you came across such sources, anyway I did not mean to step on your toes. dxneo (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finnish-language sourcing appears non-existent based on a brief search. All I could find is this paywalled article from Etelä-Suomen Sanomat. It looks to be a bio of some sort based on the Kone Foundation grant, but I don't have access to the full text and thus can't say how much independent content there is beyond an interview. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird but an artist who spent most of his career in the UK might not have much coverage in his home country. Especially if the country is Finland (a place where electronic music gets very little coverage, if any at all). I feel that shouldn't be a reason to disqualify an internationally renown artist. Surely it is more important that the entire world is mentioning him rather than his home country? Pam Embert (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage in reliable sources cited in the article such as The Quietus and Resident Advisor (listed reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) as well as additional sources identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not heard of the guy and i'm into some pretty obscure electronic bands from the Scandanavian counties like Biosphere [6] and Manna [7]. So lets look at the refs, in the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [8] This is an interview and is not independent.
Ref 2 [9] That is another interview and is not independent.
Ref 3 [10] Genuine secondary review.
Ref 4 [11] Profile review. Not in-depth.
Ref 5 [12] WP:PRIMARY database generated profile.
Ref 6 [13] That is another interview and is not independent.
Ref 7 Non-rs
Ref 8 [14] Not specific. Tangenital.
Ref 9 [15] Another secondary review.
Ref 10 [16] That is another interview and is not independent.
Ref 11 [17] Another interview and not independent.

I guess it is typical fare for a modern electronic musician. There is two independent reviews. So i'd say the WP:HEYMANN was successful. Nomination Withdrawn' scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 12 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 Ketel Marte. but discuss whether or not this page should stay as a Redirect after Merger is complete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have to keep repeating myself but please do not move an article DURING an AFD. It really messes with the discussion closure. Please do not do this again. Just wait until the discussion is closed and then move the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak[edit]

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

Removed PROD. As I said, this is a record that is not independently notable. It was created due to the WP:RECENTISM of it being reached last night. The article's creator suggested on Talk:Ketel Marte that this is notable because Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak has its own article, but this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and time has shown that DiMaggio's streak has WP:LASTING power. The record is mentioned on Marte's article and 2023 World Series, which is sufficient. This does not need to be WP:SPLIT off into its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time has also not yet shown that Domingo Germán's perfect game has WP:LASTING power, yet there is an article on that. Why? Because the event was notable enough by itself and so warranted its own article.

------------------------

Make no mistake about it: this post-season hitting streak is historic and will almost certainly be enshrined in Cooperstown. That is why it's been covered by various news outlets such as MLB itself [18], ESPN [19], the AP [20], the Athletic [21] and many others. The criteria of "independent notability" has thus been conclusively met.

------------------------

There is no need to wait an untold amount of time before "certifying" that an event is notable. A record-breaking hitting streak is certainly notable enough that it doesn't need to wait 82 years before having its own article. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have had discussions about perfect games that have established that they meet WP:NEVENT, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Halladay's perfect game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game. That sources exist for Marte's record in a news spike following Game 2 of the World Series is unsurprising: how to handle this is what WP:RECENTISM discusses. I guarantee that nobody knew who held the postseason hitting streak before Marte began approaching it, because it's not a record that has independent notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more quick thoughts on RECENTISM. (1) I know it's an OTHERSTUFF argument of sorts, but it's funny you create an articke for Marte's record postseason hitting streak but not Adolis Garcia's record postseason RBI total. (2) If Marte extends his hitting streak in Game 3, the title will be out of date. That's correctible by a page move, but demonstrates that the "18-game postseason hitting streak" record isn't necessarily going to be a thing after tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not aware of any significant media attention being attributed to that post-season RBI total record, at least in comparison to this.

2. That's a moot point. If someone were to break DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, you wouldn't need to wait until that hitting streak is over (which, theoretically, could go on forever if it spans multiple seasons) to create an article for it. Wikipedia reflects the most recent and accurate version of events so the page will update accordingly if and when that changes. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article consists of one paragraph with one reference and the streak itself is not that notable considering there were no articles for the previous 17-game streaks. We don't even have a stand alone article for the concept of postseason records in general. It is a bit of trivia that is mentioned on his own page with additional mentions on the World Series page. I just don't see how the article itself can really be expanded much beyond the one paragraph it currently contains. Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you take a look at Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, that's more or less the blueprint of how the article could, and should, look like. You go more in-depth with each game, the context, etc. I agree that in its current state, the article is incomplete, but that doesn't mean that the article itself isn't worth keeping. Like all things, it can only be improved. TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DiMaggio's streak is far more impressive.. 56 games! 18 games while nice is nowhere of that level and it hasn't gotten significant coverage outside of a few mentions related to the World Series. Spanneraol (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How "impressive" a streak looks is irrelevant to its notability. As editors, we ought to remain as objective as possible, and objectively, this post-season htting streak has been widely covered enough that it warrants its own article. Here's an article discussing it just now.

[22] Ketel Marte extends hitting streak to 20 games. Notice the headline doesn't mention the World Series at all. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that is "widely covered" gets its own Wikipedia page. It hasn't gotten significant coverage outside of the postseason since it's not a World Series-specific record. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me be clear, this article is not detailed enough to warrant its own article in its current state. However, if it is expanded upon with more facts that are supported by veritable sources, I believe that it is notable and important. As stated above, if the streak was ordinary, it wouldn’t be getting as much media attention as it is.76.117.162.190 (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Obviously, as I just created the article a couple of days ago, it's still very much a stub. But the article itself should be kept and expanded wih further information. TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ketel Marte. I just don't see this as a notable topic on its own. It's a nice record to have but its importance is nowhere close to DiMaggio's mind-blowing streak. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to my comment above, I'd like to add that it's telling that we did not have an existing article on the 17-game streak that used to be the record (shared by three players). So I just don't buy the idea that this new record is going to be part of baseball lore forever rather than a trivia question in a few years time. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly no need for a separate article, largely per WP:SPORTSEVENT (which I believe still applies even though it is a series of sports events). Much of this content can be (or already is) covered on Ketel Marte, 2023 World Series, etc. I oppose a redirect because "Ketel Marte's [18 or 20]-game post-season hitting streak" is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 17:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ketel Marte The streak itself is notable and important. However, I believe that it would be better suited as a part of Marte’s article rather than its own article. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Ketel Marte article, it's impressive but not terribly notable, it's only discussed in basically a paragraph here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ketel Marte, the streak can be sufficiently covered in his article. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't redirect - besides being an unlikely search term, the title is incorrect, as the streak reached 20 games before it ended. Hatman31 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title was moved to "Ketel Marte's 20-game post-season hitting streak" after this AFD started, so that would be the title that would potentially be redirected (which I also oppose as stated above). Frank Anchor 21:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Doesn't change my vote, though. Hatman31 (talk) 18:09, 10 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 Memory erasure. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:TVTROPES WP:NLIST. This is just a bare definition of the phenomenon and a massively incompletable list of places where it has ever come up in media, not secondary discussion of the phenomenon. lizthegrey (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Mythology, and Psychology. lizthegrey (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Memory erasure § In fiction as WP:ATD. While I would not be surprised if this concept is covered somewhere, the title "Mindwipe" seems not to be the common name according to RS. —siro χ o 21:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Not in https://sf-encyclopedia.com/search.php , and what we have is an unreferenced (OR) definition and than a MOS:TRIVIA failing list. Ping User:TompaDompa just in case they saw something in other sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memory erasure#In fiction - Does not appear to be a commonly used term in reliable sources, and none of the sections of the article outside of the example farm are actually sourced or referenced in any way. It looks like an article on this topic was already deleted once in the past due to a concern over the lack of reliable sources and the use of original research, and this current iteration has not improved in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memory erasure (is it not pretty much entirely a fictional concept? I feel like the article needs a rewrite to make that clear.) as a duplicate/overlap article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. My involvement in the article was mainly to provide links to support the entries posted. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Memory erasure. There is nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memory erasure.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:18, 11 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!} 08:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Development and Enterprise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources contribute to notability (none are independent), content is promotional, and issues have been tagged but not addressed for many years. Greenman (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del Fails WP:GNG.- Altenmann >talk 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage by independent, third-party sources. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the CDE may indeed be a think tank with a notable mission, the current article does not establish its notability NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 7 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 Orphanage (band). ✗plicit 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion (Orphanage album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, as well as having been unsourced and tagged for needing references since 2009.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason of failing notability as the article nominated:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Albums and songs. HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Orphanage (band), although an AfD for the band may be in order as I could find no significant coverage about them either. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with an AfD for the band. I am unable to find any coverage on them either. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Orphanage (band).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 12 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 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Shapiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable WP:NMUSICIAN, zero coverage by reliable sources. Page created by User:Stvshap. Obs: don't confuse this person with the photographer Steve Schapiro. SparklyNights 20:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Connecticut. SparklyNights 20:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero hits for this musician, there's also a sportscaster in Florida with this name. Most session musicians won't be notable, simply for the nature of their job. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found 2 AllMusic staff reviews of his albums here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG ,lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provided sources cannot be verified and the AllMusic reviews would not be enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO.Royal88888 (talk) 01:39, 11 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 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Audi Cup[edit]

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

A speculative, futuristic article with no verifiable source nor external confirmation of the tournament.Jõsé^hola 19:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jõsé^hola 19:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bayern Muchen's website doesn't even mention it occurring in 2024. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No proof that it is being held at all. WP:CRYSTAL applies until it is scheduled with a confirmed format. Sounder Bruce 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have other articles for this little tourney which also don't really cut the mustard for GNG. It can be recreated easily if need be, this can be moved to a sandbox to be worked on. But I don't think the tourney season pages pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly I don't really consider it a 'tournament' in the sense of the word; it's Audi paying four teams to play four games and the TV networks getting some content. It's the equivalent of American summer tours in that they only exist to fill seats and promote something. Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @MrSchimpf: Why? In every sense of the word for tournament it is a tournament. Friendly or competitive, the format is still a tournament. Audi are not paying the teams to play, of the money, well, 70% goes to charity and 30% is to cover overheads. Govvy (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood, but 90% of soccer fans don't care about the purse or charity outside testimonials or the big tourneys; Audi is there to advertise and the teams are there to play soccer. It's cold to state that, but that's the reality of the situation. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 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 23:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of paintball manufacturers[edit]

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

WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The same seven manufacturers found in Category:Paintball equipment manufacturers and Template:Paintball, sourced only by their company websites, folded into a list of many other manufacturers of questionable notability. Removing the non-notable ones would leave a list that could be a small, columned list in Paintball equipment. Wikishovel (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. Wikishovel (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only primary sources exist, and those don't contribute to notability. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a few entries and the notability of most of those is questionable as well. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 7 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 23:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Irgang Elsner[edit]

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

There is very little coverage of Elsner aside from content which appears to have been created based on this article. The most reputable source I have found is an interview with Elsner about the Danish Gin industry. Does not appear to meet coverage required by WP:BIO. Uffda608 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Denmark. Uffda608 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few reasonably well cited papers in GScholar (cited as "Henrik Elsner" [23]), but not enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citation profile appears respectable, with top citns in GS 178,139,97 and a few other moderately cited papers, but top paper has nine co-authors; I don't think this is quite enough to meet WP:PROF in a fairly highly cited field. Also, if the name were not fairly unusual, I'd say the well-cited papers I'm seeing were not by the subject; they're all biology/biophysics, not chemistry; the article is sufficiently microstubby that it is impossible to tell. Nothing obvious in Ebsco/Proquest. Article appears to have been created by SPA with no substantive edits by others. Leaning delete unless anyone can come up with anything better; I don't think the current article is much loss. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I dont see a pass of WP:NPROF here nor GNG. The main source of the article is a wine-magazine, there really isnt much to write about at this point. --hroest 03:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some investigation and did not find additional supporting material - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course. I'm thinking that there might be significant Danish-local sources, which could support an article on the Danish Wikipedia, but those wouldn't be generally available globally, I think. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 10 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. Daniel (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1RXS J165424.6-433758[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. A paper has recently been published, with the usual flurry of press release mirrors showing up, but nothing of lasting significance. Lithopsian (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

draftify The publicity around this object seems to have mostly come out in June when the preprint of the paper identifying it as a Polar Cataclysmic Variable came out, but it seems like the paper has finished peer review and just been published. More significant coverage may appear in coming weeks. StereoFolic (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a minor star that is unlikely to pass WP:NASTRO any time ever. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: agree with the reasoning of StereoFolic. There is not much to distinguish this polar system, other than the novelty of having a very small galactic latitude. Further studies in the future may bump it up to notability, but for now a single study is insufficient to pass WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a {{Promising draft}}: there is currently not enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an article but there is still the possibility of more studies releasing soon and establishing notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate list, or draftify. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinicius Zorin-Machado[edit]

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

No good refs on the page. Seems to be an actor with a handful of minor roles, nothing found which would appear sufficient to meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Brazil. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article is an interview, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, NOTINHERITED applies to mentions in promos found in BEFORE. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 8 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 Major League Baseball rivalries#Show-Me Series: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Kansas City Royals. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals–Royals rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't appear to really be a significant rivalry, as evidenced by a lack of significant coverage. Perhaps this can be redirected to Major League Baseball rivalries#Show-Me Series: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Kansas City Royals. Let'srun (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom seems reasonable, if there's enough source material to support that section at the other article (probably delete if not). "Two teams have played against each other a lot" doesn't amount to a "rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, and I have a strong suspicion that other articles of this sort need to redir to sections like that one, or to sections at articles on the individual teams. Even where there's lots of quick-mention coverage that a "rivalry" (whatever that really means) exists, that doesn't make it a stand-alone enyclopedic topic unless the source material is in-depth about the rivalry as a thing unto itself rather than just as a routine aspect of team coverage. As the entire nature sports is competition, "rivalry" seems just an intrinstic quality of a team's relationship to another team it may compete against. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Been over the previous nominations. Some stand-out comments: "Every local newspaper will mention any team playing each other as a rivalry", "facing each other in the World Series is not a rivalry", "Columnists needing to find something to write about does not make this a rivalry". Since the 2nd nomination in 2012, the article has been twiddled around with a whole lot [24], but the sourcing in the interim hasn't much improved. Added were a whole lot of primary-source references (stats, schedules); these are meaningless for notability purposes. Sourcing summary (in top-to-bottom order):
- The cbssport.com article is about Royals and their gameplay; it mentions the word "rivalry" but is not about a rivalry.
- The nj.com article verges on damning, as it is about a much looser sense of "rivalry", and opens with "When Interleague play was adopted by Major League Baseball in 1997, it was done partially with an eye towards building rivalries between nearby teams in separate leagues." But obviously this sort of "this team is within X miles of some other team at all" sense of "rivalry" is of no encyclopedic relevance at all; this is about a marketing ploy to get fans invested more in local games, nothing more. While the article is arguably in some depth about rivalries, in that sense we shouldn't care about, as a concept, the coverage of this specific "rivalry" is a trivial mention that actually suggests the two cities are more of a football-town versus base-ball town situation.
- And that's it for cited sources that aren't primary. Dumped in "External links" are the following:
- A tiny kansascity.sbnation.com piece that says there is a rivalry "much like brothers fighting ... for the annual bragging rights in the state of Missouri", which is to say they're just in a vague competition to be more popular with the home-state baseball fanbase. Well, sure; major-league sports is a business, and there's money to be made.
- Next is an NYTimes piece that, like the nj.com one, is about baseball rivalries in general; Cardinals–Royals is mentioned once in passing, in the same this-is-not-a-discrete-encyclopedia-topic "these are nearby teams in the same sport" sense of "rivals".
- Next, stlouis.cbslocal.com mentions the word "rivals" but then writes an article entirely about players and their stats, not about rivalry.
- i70baseball.com finally writes a piece about this alleged rivalry; but this is local, self-published/UGC blog material and not independent of the subject (the entire site is "covering MLB with a focus on the St. Louis Cardinals and the Kansas City Royals").
- Last, a mlb.mlb.com piece mentions "rivalry" but is about the teams and key players and managers and schedules and stats, not about rivalry (and also not independent of the subject, since MLB has a fiscal interest in promoting the notion of team rivalries to jack up ticket sales out of a localized variant of the "patriotism" urge).
- In fairness, the 2012 version had another link to a galesburg.com article titled "Royals slide past Cardinals in rivalry game" (which cannot be recovered through Internet Archive), so one other article (at a minor newspaper) at least had the word "rivalry" in it.
This was weakly kept twice, on the presumption of improvement, but it hasn't happened and looks unlikely to ever happen. Given the enormous popularity of MLB stuff as a subject, this tells me that the reason is that this isn't improvable. If there were not a redirect target for this, I am confident that the decision would be delete, as it probably should have been the first two times. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: If you want to see a real sport[s] rivalry, an encyclopedic one, a topic that has a life of its own and massive coverage, and is not just a sports-journalism buzzword tossed in to flavor up routine coverage of a team's players this season, see Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a good comparison, especially when a primary source acknowledges its existence. Plus, this rivalry is a C-class, so it stands to reason that rivalry pages don't need to be perfect, but outside of WP:LOCAL, need to cover GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I'm always an advocate for the main rivalry collection page for these substandard rivalries to exist in. Even if the FANCRUFT exists for the two teams, there isn't enough SIGCOV for its own article. As SMcCandlish pointed out, there are some articles that show something, just don't exist anymore. Conyo14 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect per nom and source analysis by SMcCandlish. Willing to reconsider if additional sources are made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 13:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Basketball League[edit]

(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 non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitte Hanspal[edit]

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

The subject of the article is only notable for one event, and does not appear to have received enough coverage to merit a stand alone article per WP:1E. It may make sense to retain the page as a redirect to Miss Scandinavia per WP:PSEUDO. Uffda608 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Denmark, and Women. Uffda608 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I find, in an article about another individual [25]. No sources for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Graff[edit]

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

Article has been listed for notability concerns since 2014. Although Graff has created a variety of content easily available online, I can't find any independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:BASIC, nor does the significance of his work appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Uffda608 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and Authors. Uffda608 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. One source in the article orimary, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed more primary, failing WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 00:39, 8 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 23:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Gohel[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. This page is a WP:RESUME sourced only by ROUTINE announcements and primary sources closely related to the subject (places he studied/worked at). His profile on Scholar has below-average citations for a COVID-19 researcher (notice that some of those research papers were not led by him, given that his name is not always the first in the list of authors). Page created by SPA, subsequently edited by other COI accounts who repeatedly tried to remove the COI template. SparklyNights 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing close is IEEE Senior membership, but those are not that selective. His h-factor is low, and research grants don't count. Maybe in five years, but he is not close at the moment.

Ldm1954 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, India, and United States of America. SparklyNights 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor [26] in a high-citation field, with ok citations but nothing that stands out as better than a typical assistant professor in this field. Not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page

Certainly, we should take into account his publications, his rare IEEE Senior membership, extensive community service, and his role as a director. He has garnered noteworthy recognition in smaller communities, surpassing many individuals with limited citations on their Wikipedia pages.! Rahulpatelfan (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)— Rahulpatelfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of these things amount to notability by any of the relevant notability standards. IEEE Fellow membership would, but senior member is well below that level. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. So, we should focus on enhancing this page, highlighting the significance of books and federal research contracts as notable achievements. It's important to establish notability within the relevant academic or professional community rather than solely relying on Ivy League associations. 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think getting a research grants can ever be considered notable, unless the academic is PI of one of the big multimillion center grants. I have come across faculty at places without a PhD program who have far higher h-factor and funding. It is not all Ivy league by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I see. The lead principal investor and director typically assume the last authorship position, not the first. Is that clear to you? 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me at all as practices vary widely. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Educational leader and researcher are two major things 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes: (1) If you have a conflict of interest, whether personal or financial, you are required to declare it, by Wikipedia's terms of use. (2) It is a serious violation of Wikipedia's norms for a single person to participate in a deletion discussion with the appearance of two identities, either by using multiple logins or by combining a login with logged-out edits. Doing so deliberately could result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IEEE Senior Member [27] is an honor but it does not begin to approach the level required to establish Wikipedia notability. Check out the 2 links I've provided; probably tens of thousands of IEEE members qualify for senior membership if they apply.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citation profile isn't strong enough to argue for WP:PROF#C1, and everything else is too minor to justify an article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, at this point he doesnt pass WP:NPROF. He doesnt pass NPROF#1 nor any of other criteria listed there. --hroest
Comment. The citation profile appears respectable, top GS citns 181,177,94,91 but then a big drop off; the two highest are on Covid and I believe the others are also in a highly cited field, and all are very recent. Further, his GS profile conflates two different researchers -- H/HA & HR, which is muddying the issue. Agree with others that anything below IEEE fellowship does not count under WP:PROF. There are five books claimed; has anyone looked for reviews? A quick look (JSTOR,Proquest,Ebsco) didn't find any, nor any significant press coverage. I think this is probably a case of too-early career; the PhD is only in 2015. Leaning delete unless anyone can find reviews sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any book reviews. Moreover, Human Brain Computer Interface was published by "Lambert Academic", which is a vanity press/content mill [28]. So were Introduction to Network & Cybersecurity as well as Applied ICT - Beyond Oceans & Spaces. Even self-published books can become noteworthy, of course, but that's a big hill to climb. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 8 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.

Lydia Mak[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject, a Hong Kong women's footballer, has not received enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. JTtheOG (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), I've linked some sources below. Would you review them? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - enough sourcing to show notability, good work. Giant Snowman 18:48, 7 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. Tsang, Ngan-ping 曾雁平 (2017-07-15). "【文武雙全】DSE榜眼港足女將：想成立小學校隊" [[Adept at both the arts and sports] Hong Kong female football player ranked second in DSE: Want to form a primary school team]. Apple Daily (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "18歲的麥可兒今晨表示，自細已隨父親踢足球，到中學開始入選校隊，兩年前入選港隊U19，早前還躋身大港腳，有機會友賽緬甸。居於將軍澳，在黃大仙區上學，但效力大埔的可兒表示，雖然日常要讀書及參與代表隊及球會的訓練，但未有因足球而影響學業，在過程中更學懂計劃及分配時間。"
  From Google Translate: "The 18-year-old Lydia Mak said this morning that she has been playing football with her father since she was a child. She started to be selected for the school team when she was in middle school. She was selected for the Hong Kong U19 team two years ago. She was also a member of the Hong Kong Football Team earlier and had the opportunity to play in a friendly match with Myanmar. Lydia, who lives in Tseung Kwan O and goes to school in Wong Tai Sin District, but plays for Tai Po, said that although she has to study and participate in the training of the representative team and football club on a daily basis, her studies have not been affected by football, and she has learned more about planning and allocation in the process."
  The article later notes: "麥可兒在中學文憑試（DSE）取得七科考獲5**以及一科5*，成了今年的「榜眼」。她在中文、英文、數學、通識、物理、化學、M2（數學延伸課程單元二）七科考到5**，而在地理就取得5*，差一點當上狀元。計畫入讀科大的國際科研，早已入選香港女子青年軍，亦曾入選港隊，參加過中國第13屆中學生運動會的女子足球預賽，可說女足難得的文武雙全的女子足球員。"
  From Google Translate: "Lydia scored 5** in seven subjects and 5* in one subject in the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE), becoming this year's "second place". She scored 5* in seven subjects including Chinese, English, mathematics, general studies, physics, chemistry, and M2 (mathematics extended course unit 2), and she scored 5* in geography, almost becoming the top scholar. She plans to study international science at HKUST. She has already been selected for the Hong Kong Women’s Youth Army and the Hong Kong team. She participated in the women’s football preliminaries of the 13th China Secondary School Games. She can be said to be a rare female football player with both civil and military skills in women's football."
2. Yiu, Chuek-ting (2017-07-22). "DSE「超級榜眼」U19港足女將麥可兒文武全能靠自律" [DSE "Super Second Place" U19 Hong Kong Football Women's Player Lydia is versatile in both the arts and sports and relies on self-discipline]. UPower (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  The article notes: "文武雙全的Lydia剛畢業於德望學校，在學時既要應付繁忙學業，亦需兼顧女足訓練，她對於充實的中學生涯別有一番體會 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Lydia, who is good at both the arts and sports, just graduated from Good Hope School. During her school days, she had to cope with busy studies and women's football training. She has a unique experience of a fulfilling middle school career ..."
3. "麥可兒：體驗執法裁決非易" [Experiencing refereeing. Adjudicating is not easy]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2019-08-21. Archived from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  The article notes: "包括大埔女足後衛麥可兒。經過2日課程包括親身在場上執法後，她感受到裁判員要在電光火石之間作出正確判斷實非易事，未來也想嘗試在校內的比賽執法。... 新學期將升大學三年級的麥可兒，是為期2天的香港足總女子裁判員課程其中一名學員"
  From Google Translate: "Including Tai Po women’s football defender Lydia Mak. After the two-day course, which included officiating on the field in person, she realized that it was not easy for referees to make correct judgments in the blink of an eye, and she wanted to try officiating in school games in the future. ... Lydia, who will be a third-year university student in the new semester, is one of the students in the two-day Hong Kong Football Association Women’s Referee Course ..."
4. "科大續派銀彈招攬狀元" [HKUST continues to send out silver bullets to recruit top picks]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  The article notes: "在科大修讀國際科研（物理）的二年級生麥可兒是港隊女子足球隊成員，她表示，升上大學後計劃自己支付生活費，惟港隊訓練亦不能鬆懈，平時星期一至五放學後都要參加足球訓練，周六、周日則要做功課，只有周六上午可以兼任補習，獲得該筆獎學金後，她可以不用如大部分大學生般額外做兼職賺錢。"
  From Google Translate: "Lydia Mak, a second-year student studying International Research (Physics) at HKUST, is a member of the Hong Kong women’s football team. She said that she plans to pay for her own living expenses after entering university, but she cannot relax in the training of the Hong Kong team, usually after school from Monday to Friday. She has to participate in football training, and she has to do homework on Saturdays and Sundays. Only Saturday mornings can be used as tutoring. After receiving the scholarship, she does not need to work an extra part-time job to make money like most college students."
5. "科大獎學金「加碼」搶DSE尖子生" [HKUST's scholarship increases to grab top DSE students]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  The article notes: "現在讀理學院國際科研（物理）二年級升三年級的麥可兒，是香港女子足球隊隊員以及科大女足隊隊長，她認為科大每年為她提供生活費讓她可專注於足球和學業。她下學年希望到荷蘭作交換生，除體驗歐洲科研文化，亦因為荷蘭女足世界杯中奪亞，期望可參與當地球會訓練。"
  From Google Translate: "Lydia, who is currently in her second year of international research (physics) in the Faculty of Science, is a member of the Hong Kong women's football team and the captain of the HKUST women's football team. She believes that HKUST provides her with living expenses every year so that she can focus on football and studies. She hopes to be an exchange student in the Netherlands next school year. In addition to experiencing European scientific research culture, she also hopes to participate in local football club training because the Netherlands won second place in the Women's World Cup."
6. "科大吸尖子入學獎學金加碼5千" [HKUST attracts top students and increases admission scholarship by HK$5,000]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-07-10.
  The article notes: "該校理學院國際科學研究二年級生麥可兒，當年DSE成績達7科5**，及身為香港女子足球隊代表，因而獲頒入學及運動獎學金。她現時也有參加3隊足球隊，每天放學也要練習，難以抽空做兼職賺錢。"
  From Google Translate: "
7. "鼓勵學生入讀科大獎學金生活費增一成" [Encourage students to enroll. HKUST Scholarship. Living expenses increased by 10%]. am730 (in Chinese). 2019-07-10.
  The article notes: "國際科研(物理)二年級生麥可兒是女足港隊代表，當年考獲7科5**。平日訓練頻繁，加上兼顧學業，每天日不暇給。她認為，獎學金幫助甚大，令她不用擔心自己生活費。她十分歡迎SAAS，認為彈性安排能方便他們平衡各方面，「屆時會有體育部人員幫助我們協調、編排時間表。」她打算未來到歐洲交流，參加研究和足球訓練。"
  From Google Translate: "Lydia Mak, a second-year student in International Research (Physics), is the representative of the Hong Kong Women’s Football Team and got 5** in 7 subjects that year. Training is frequent on weekdays, plus taking care of studies, there is no time to spare every day. She believes that the scholarship is of great help and allows her to not worry about her living expenses. She very much welcomes SAAS and believes that the flexible arrangement can make it easier for them to balance various aspects. "There will be staff from the sports department to help us coordinate and arrange the schedule." She plans to go to Europe for exchanges in the future to participate in research and football training."
8. Ma, Fei-yee 馬菲爾 (2018-06-10). "【女子足總盃】「足可圓夢」故事新章葉佳與大埔女足譜寫" [[Women's FA Cup] A new chapter in the story of "Enough to make your dream come true" written by Ye Jia and the Tai Po Women's Football Team]. UPower (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  The article notes: "去季還只是後備的麥可兒、成慧芝等球員，今季已開始在隊中佔一席位，麥可兒更入選了大港腳，至於中場有劉潤兒擔綱，"
  From Google Translate: "Players such as Lydia and Cheng Huizhi, who were only reserve players last season, have begun to occupy a seat in the team this season. Lydia was even selected for the D Hong Kong Football Team."
9. "香港學界女子足球代表隊" [Hong Kong Schools Girls Football Team] (PDF) (in Chinese). Hong Kong Schools Sports Federation. 2016-12-30. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  This source should not be used to establish notability. I am listing it here because the second page of the document verifies that Mak Ho Yi Lydia's Chinese name is "麥可兒".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lydia Mak (traditional Chinese: 麥可兒; simplified Chinese: 麦可儿) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Bečić[edit]

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

The subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this transfer piece. JTtheOG (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 6 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 Yebo Yes United F.C.. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Block Park[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. As an AtD perhaps a merge or redirect to Yebo Yes United F.C. JMWt (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yebo Yes United F.C. not independently notable. Giant Snowman 20:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yebo Yes United F.C. per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 12 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Biari[edit]

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

Not notable individual, Not a biography, No verification except claims by an interested party. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would be BLP1E if it was even true, but as of now we have no independent sourcing for even the existence of this person, their role in anything whatsoever, or their death. Earlier versions fail WP:BLPCRIME, and as there is, and likely will never be, any sourcing to backup the claims of an involved party this article fails the very lowest bar of having verifiable material sourced to independent third party sources. nableezy - 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely BLP1E and BLPCRIME cannot apply, as they are policies relating to living people. No editor is asserting that this is a living person. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apply to recently dead as well, I think (if he is in fact dead). Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BDP, absent independent confirmation of death BLP applies. nableezy - 16:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 16:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says 'reliable' rather than 'independent'; we know the IDF isn't independent but has consensus already been reached elsewhere that it shouldn't be considered a reliable source? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inquire at RSN whether the IDF can be considered reliable for the statements made in the article if that's a concern. Ifyou don't mind opinion, then read this " This is a deeply rooted culture of lies, which has become so legitimized that is has become an inseparable part of “IDF values.” In a sharply worded article published on the website Mida in February, Maj. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Brik wrote: “Soldiers, non-commissioned officers, officers and commanders, even at the highest level, have no problem lying to the higher level, and the higher level likes it, because it doesn’t have to deal with problems it is not shown, and it can also continue to present a good picture to the level above.” Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS - Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A reliable source for material is one that is independent of what it is covering, among other things. nableezy - 17:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point, should we accept The New York Times' coverage of Biari's death as a reliable source, per WP:NYT, or do we take the view that as that coverage is based on a IDF press release and presumably not corroborated by an independent source, it is no more reliable than the press release itself? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not NYT coverage of the death, it is NYT coverage of what the IDF said in a press release and is attributed to the IDF. It confirms that the IDF issued a statement and what it said, NYT is certainly reliable for that confirmation. It also confirms that a Hamas spokesperson denied the claim, NYT is reliable for that too. But what is missing is any verification of his death and even if there was any, the man does not appear to be notable at all except for what the IDF say about him. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t verify that it only verifies the IDF says these things about him. Yes they report that the IDF made these claims in justification of an attack, but they do not say any of it is fact. Just that the claims exist. And we don’t base articles on people based on unsubstantiated rumor. Even when sources document the existence of those rumors. nableezy - 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge to 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia. There's some independent sourcing on this (e.g. Hindustan Times), but unless there's reporting on him outside of the context of the airstrike then I don't think we ought have a standalone article on the subject. He's covered more or less only in the context of the airstrike, and I think a redirect to that page seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the Hindustan Times is in any special position to add anything to the IDF report - I think they are just regurgitating the IDF press release(s). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Primarily based on unverified information, better discussed in the 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find anything reliable about this individual before 31 October 2023, in English or Arabic. There are some forum/propaganda posts from 2007 saying a field commander in Jabalia with this name was either killed (1) or had his foot amputated following an Israeli airstrike. Obviously not reliable sources. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is just a name associated with an event, the Jabalia airstrike, and nothing more. There is no independently notable biographical information to be found here whatsoever. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual before the event, dying doesn't change this. Redirect to the article about the airstrike; the individual may have died or may not have. This isn't the basis for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Andreas JN 466 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like all issues have been fixed by now. Specifically the notability, and the known history are there. Other concerns were answers in the discussion above. Anything else to claim? TaBaZzz (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the editors who voted delete should be notified as the article seem to have changed substantially when they voted. The general WP:42 and notability are now well established using sources like CNN and Reuters. The coverage even before Ibrahim Biari killing is quite in-depth and I do not think proper WP:BEFORE was done as his name is mentioned - in time of the nom - in many sources.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed and all issues have not been "fixed", non notable, death not verified, single source (CNN, Reuters, attribute IDF press release). Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable individual, BLP1E, single source. The entire article has lines "According to IDF", "allegedly" and "reportedly". What notable did he do in his life that can be clearly confirmed? Nothing. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this person truly ever existed can't be confirmed, see these comments[29][30]. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him.VR _talk 06:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with other issues, not in favor of a ton of articles being created in the scope of the recent conflict. Pg 6475 ^TM 19:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough for a separate article. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:47, 11 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) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Moslehi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Plandu (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Iran, Canada, and New York. TJMSmith (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some work but I see healthy citations for an Associate professor with 8 or more publications with 100+ citations. I dont think the awards are significant enough but the citations look healthy enough to pass WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 14:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the article was last nominated in 2021 and the decision was to keep the article, what has changed since then exactly? --hroest 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tone was promotional (and had been for a while), it contained solely journal articles and primary sources as citations without any secondary sources, and a lot of work on it was done by someone who seemed to have a connection to the subject. All of that made it seem like a vanity entry. If she has enough citations to pass WP:NPROF, that's fine.

Thanks to David Eppstein for cleaning it up. Plandu (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I trimmed down the article by what can be supported by its sources and, as a result of looking deeper, my weak keep from the first AfD has become weaker. She does have two first-author papers with triple-digit citations, but they're from 2000 and 2006. She seems to be stuck at the associate professor level. We're not citing any of her works in other Wikipedia articles, so losing this one would not create any holes elsewhere. But I did at least find one recent local newspaper story with in-depth coverage of her research (and some background about her), which saves the article from being entirely primarily sourced and keeps me on the keep side of the fence. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the citations from GS, excluding the highly multi-authored except where the subject is first author, the top citns are 578,373,195,191,74 (two of which she is first author on), which meets my understanding of WP:PROF even in a fairly high citation field. She's also been associated with some very highly cited large-team work on cancer, which does not diminish her notability, even if we tend to discount it. Thanks to David Eppstein for cleaning the article up and uncovering the newspaper coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she exists in Google Trends had have publications in academic journals. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:44, 12 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Domino One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails both WP:NFILM (if it was actually released) and WP:NFF (if it is still unreleased). DonaldD23 talk to me 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmys (link below) states: "The movie was entered into the 2005 DC Film Festival, but was never released to the public." So it's a technically released film, but with no distribution. See also this. If redirected to NP filmo (or kept), this can be added. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Three are 3 another language articles.

Flénu (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them have citations that support notability. They are all database sites. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmys website states the director was best known for this film, fwiw. Lots (and I do mean lots) of passing mentions of the film about his death/Portman (very often mentioning it as his best known film). But also mentioned with some details in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television. As Louvel has no page, I think Keep would be a fair decision for now. Ready to add some sources if this solution is chosen. Considering what the sources say, I would not be opposed to a Redirect to Natalie Portman filmography, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film does not appear to satisfy WP:NFILM. Most of the coverage of this film consists of brief mentions in the director's obituaries; the most detailed coverage I have seen, from the Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television cited above, has only two sentences about this film. The notability guidelines for film require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; there are independent reliable sources but they don't have significant coverage. (And I haven't found any coverage at all from sources that are non-independent or unreliable, either.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM/NFF. Source in article is a datbase record, not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. "Sources" above are not about the subject, but mention the subject in passing, and the rationale is refuted by NOTINHERITED. // Timothy :: talk 14:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The official website appeared to be www.dominoone.com (now down, but historically accessible via the Wayback Machine. Ready to add some sources via 29/4/2005 version. Flénu (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cannot see what my !vote would have to do with WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not saying the film should be kept because Portman plays in it, for example. As for contemptuous quotation marks added to the word sources, well, ....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New London Graduate School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, single source is primary, tagged since 2013. A WP:BEFORE search only turned up sources for The London Graduate School not NLGS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 5 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 teams and organizations in DC Comics. HIstory is there if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 01:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Cadmus[edit]

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

"a fictional genetic engineering project in the DC Comics Universe". Lengthy plot summary with a lengthy list of appearances in various media, bur zero analysis/reception. WP:GNG fail and my BEFORE is not helpful. References are comic books, summaries of their plot, plus few media pieces with passing mentions of this in reference to some tv/video game topics this appears in. The only RS cited ([31]) is a passing mention. Best ATD suggestion - redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics per above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while also establishing bios of some of the characters in the respectful List of DC Comics characters page in the same spirit that I just mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. The subject fails GNG as it lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 11 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 DC Universe locations. ✗plicit 12:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Heights Penitentiary[edit]

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

"a fictional setting in the DC Comics Universe". Very poorly referenced plot summary + list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Fails WP:GNG. Four footnotes - three to comic books and one to a page about a voice actor. The best WP:ATD I can think of would be redirecting this to List of DC Universe locations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, Crime, and Law. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations no indication this passes GNG and the list is an appropriate redirect target. Rhino131 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect There isn't enough indication that this passes WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar Saeed[edit]

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

Does not have significant in-depth coverage (in English at least)—only statistical and passing mentions. X (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bahrain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Given he played no notable matches, there isn't a suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, hasn't played major cricket. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing notable here really Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 9 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. There is a rough consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF#C1. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Rinaldi[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Mathematics, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think his citation counts on Google Scholar are good enough for WP:PROF#C1 but I didn't find anything else on a quick search. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Citation counts look respectable at first glance, but the highly-cited papers are also highly coauthored, and middle author (in a field where that at least sometimes matters) in this situation doesn't impress me very much. I believe both AI and bioinformatics to be higher citation fields. Notability outside of possible WP:NPROF C1 looks unlikely. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure I'm seeing notability, almost but not quite at PROF. Maybe a few more papers under their belt and they'd qualify. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree most of the top citations in GS come from highly coauthored work. If you exclude these, though, you still get 317,163,149,105,101 (some of which he is first author), which seems enough to meet WP:PROF to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems worth noting that this article is almost certainly an autobiography. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility but not a justification for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well that's why I labeled it "Comment" rather that "Delete", isn't it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Generally having 10 papers with 100+ citations each and an h-index of 31 is sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 21:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Espresso Addict's analysis of his citations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has publications indexed in MEDLINE --Maxim Masiutin (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Individual articles may be merged or nominated for deletion at editorial discretion, but it seems that a consensus to delete all is unlikely to arise. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani[edit]

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

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability on its own accord. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because

most of references are same
no notability of individual translations
The article article Tirukkural translations covers it:

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the User talk page of one editor who created many of these articles and from the looks of it, they were only informed that this deletion discussion concerned one article they created. Redtigerxyz, could you leave a personal note, informing them of the extent of this AFD? It would be fair to do so and I'd appreciate you taking care of this step. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is all a bit of a mess, with the information spread and duplicated across umpteen articles in a way that really cannot be helpful to the reader, but condensing it all, without losing useful stuff, is going to be a nightmare. I'm not sure it's fair to expect the major contributor to do the whole thing in the time-span of an AfD. The problem starts with List_of_Tirukkural_translations_by_language which duplicates itself as both a table and a list-of-lists, with the table very unhelpfully linking to Wikipedia's general articles on the languages rather than to the articles about the translations. If I'm looking up English translations of this work, I expect to be taken to Tirukkural translations into English, not English. But now, as well as that directory of individual articles on translations to each language, we have Tirukkural translations which is a master-table organised by language, and we have each sub-section of the master-table corresponding to a single language duplicated as a separate article, for example, Tirukkural translations into French. These have some additional text in most cases, setting things in context. I note that the nominator has not included Tirukkural translations into English in the nomination, presumably because it has more text than most. One helpful way out of this might be to condense everything, including the article on English translations, into Tirukkural translations, but rather than presenting a single enormous table here, present all the individual tables one after the other, with introductory paragraphs where necessary between them - in effect, make it a composite article with a section on each language, sections arranged alphabetically, each section with a table of translations where it's helpful to do so (i.e. where there are more than one or two translations, and there's a desire to compare them). But I'm scared that if the editors who've put so much work into this already actually do this, someone will look at the resulting article and say "too long, and has anyone discussed the translations of this work as a global subject?" and nominate the result for deletion... Elemimele (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, I believe Tirukkural translations into English can be retained as a daughter article from Tirukkural translations; English translations table should be removed from here. Most (if not all) of other articles in Category:Tirukkural translations by language need to be deleted. I may have missed an article or two in the category in this deletion. Individual articles need to notable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm concerned some might be both notable and long enough that they should be kept, like Tirukkural translations into Sanskrit eg Tirukkural translations into Arabic. It appears none should be deleted outright as many have verifiable information not present in Tirukkural translations, and even some (most?) of the short ones are notable in their own right. The larger page could have a new section on the history of translations for each language, some of them summaries linking to the longer individual pages. Probably best discussed on the talk page, though. —siro χ o 10:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

siro, Checked Tirukkural translations into Sanskrit. Most of text includes date, title, author, place of publication - which is already covered in Tirukkural translations. Agree, there is some additional information in this article like first para of "History of translations", which can be easily incorporated into Tirukkural translations. I suggest that we can preserve this in draft space for checking, if required. I can work with the creator for integrating the text/ references, upon a consensus here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost all 28 articles appear to meet our notability requirements, especially if you include the offline references.

More importantly, I oppose such a big and sweeping proposal to restructure this subject area through the use of one mass AfD. These articles vary in length and referencing. We are required to consider ATD (alternatives to deletion), giving preference to alternatives, not to deletion. That gets complicated when you have so many articles -- and just seven days.

There's a lot of detail work here for someone to actually carry this out. Are you expecting the closing admin to do all this merging, redirecting and deleting? At least one template's going to need rework. There are 28 sets of "What links here" connections to check as well as red links to remove from other articles. See this discussion about another big set of deletions I was involved with:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354#Deletion/unlinking norms

I volunteered to help the closing admin and spent several hours on the follow-up to the deletions. That was easier because the articles were simple cookie-cutter stubs which these are not. There was no actual content to merge.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meaningless nomination. NavjotSR (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All these could easily fit in a single table with appropriate references added. Many of them have a single table row definition. The articles are essentially duplicates of each of these except for the information related to the translation itself + language details. No where on wikipedia is this kind of article structure used. Delete them all, and reformat them into table article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table has been created prior to this, so they all redundant. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of these is individually notable, and it's hard to see that they even are collectively. The main article already contains (way too much) information on translations of the work. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information here already looks to be covered by Tirukkural translations, and I struggle to see a reason for having dedicated articles for each of these. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for reasons others have provided. toobigtokale (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Taking a deeper look, enough of these are individually notable by WP:GNG, that another !vote would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. I think there's a valid WP:PAGEDECIDE argument here, but it's important to note, that that is virtually never used as a reason for deletion at AfD, and is occasionally a reason for merge. Given the sheer number of articles nominated, I think a a merge outcome here is overly prescriptive and we should let that happen editorially after this discussion closes. —siro χ o 01:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Tirukkural translations is essentially a list article whereas individual translation articles nominated for deletion here, such as Tirukkural Translations into Latin, Arabic, Chinese, Malayalam, etc. are proper articles with much wider scope than the list article, such as having a background info (e.g., Tirukkural translations into Gujarati, Marathi, Malayalam), detailed history section (e.g., English, Malayalam, French, German, Kannada, Sanskrit), issues and difficulties in translating into that language (e.g., English), comparative studies with the target language's native literature (e.g., Chinese), and criticism (e.g., Latin, English), not to mention images and other display elements that cannot go into the list article. Many of these cannot be included in the list article, which can hold only basic info such as name of the translator, title of translation, year, publisher details, and a brief remark. The notes column is only meant for brief notes and cannot accommodate all the details found in the individual articles. To put it into perspective, Tirukkural translations article is akin to the Bible translations article, while the individual articles are similar in scope to that of individual bible translation articles (e.g., Bible translations into Arabic, Bible translations into Malayalam, Bible translations into Telugu, etc.). The List of Tirukkural translations by language (which has been suggested to be merged) can be compared with List of Bible translations by language. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Siroxo ,A. B. These 28 articles are individually notable and pass WP:GNG.It is a WP:TRAINWRECK to nominate 28 artciles in one go.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:42, 7 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 but without prejudice against moving. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities[edit]

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

The NFAH does not have any identity distinguishable from its suborganizations (i.e. no one is directly employed by it), and as such cannot possibly meet NORG. It also doesn't work as a list, since the agency only has four subagencies; the content about the Federal Council membership should be split off in to an article about FCAH, as that is notable. The page title should redirect to a new stub about the law which founded the agency, which is notable. Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move While I'm pretty sure you could find sigcov somewhere among the thousands of media mentions, I'd be happy if this was moved to National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 and somebody filled out the rest of the article. As it stands, the page serves as an important disambiguator, as frequently when media or another source refers to the foundation, they're actually referring to the NEA or NEH, and it's a tossup as to which they're referring to. Star Garnet (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Or one could read books. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that there's a 103-page book on the subject (Sawyer 1989 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSawyer1989 (help) cited in the article), which gives historical background such as what Johnson said about the Foundation when signing the act into law. But it turns out that there's a 312-page book from a university press on the subject, that has all of the congresspeople involved, the presidents, the politics (including Johnson's choice of timing), the proposals, and the objections. The existence of the former seals the fate of this as most definitely a stub that can be expanded, no deletion, no renaming; but if that were the sole overview it would need some technical supporting sources because Sawyer (according to xyr Cengage biography) specializes in writing about history for children. There are Congressional reports from the 1970s and 1980s and other stuff that could be used to bolster such an article. However, Binkiewicz 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBinkiewicz2005 (help) is the kind of source, a university press book from a historian at CSU, that makes composing an article from "media mentions" seem entirely silly. And yes, it discusses the idea that there be "a dual arts and humanities foundation, thus directly linking the arts with liberal education". The book isn't about solely the NEA, and it doesn't even reach 1965 until chapter 3. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read Binkiewicz, but for Sawyer, the two sections that discuss the NFAH (per the index) in fact discuss the act that created it. Mach61 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having gained access to Binkiewicz, I also don't see any SIGCOV there of the NFAH, only the act. Mach61 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - When it (for example) talks about John Ryan (of the PFT) and William S. Moorhead it is quoting their views on why a national humanities foundation should exist and what it should do, not analysing an Act. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Binkiewicz, Donna M. (2005). Federalizing the Muse: United States Arts Policy and the National Endowment for the Arts, 1965–1980. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807863268.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of analytical coverage over the years e.g. [32] [33] [34] (subscription required). Perhaps, as Star Garnet suggests, the organic act is more notable than the organization, but even with a page move, much of the existing verbiage should be retained. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in hindsight, I really should have created a stub about the law and put in a requested merge. Mach61 (talk) 19:37, 11 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match[edit]

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

contested draft. This was released straight to DVD etc. and BEFORE provides no indication of sourcing A redirect to Mortal_Kombat#Films would be fine until such time as sufficient sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Video games. Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortal_Kombat#Films: Simply not able to stand alone. WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep here, as I think WP:NFILM is met.

IGN review [35]
A lengthy review [36] by an experienced reviewer in Elements of Madness, a webzine with a full masthead[37]
We also have a review in by Sam Stone in CBR [38]. CBR is owned by Valnet, so marginal reliability overall, but Sam Stone is also published in PopVerse [39], GamesRadar+ [40], and SlashFilm [41], so I think we can treat this specific piece as reliable.
We also have an IANS news agency piece from a few months back [42]

—siro χ o 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has been released. Sources mentioned by Siroxo attest it is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The first "source" goes against WP:BLOG. Additionally, WP policy is that articles by the same writer are not considered reliable if they appear in potentially unreliable sources. Additionally, I am unconvinced by what is essentially a glorified press release. Besides the IGN review, it's really reaching. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does the IGN review go against WP:BLOG. Mooonswimmer 16:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant second. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sources provided by User:Siroxo. Mooonswimmer 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes GNG. A fast Google search showed other sources including from Bloody Disgusting a very reliable source for horror, cult and other R-rated media. There is also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this ★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason these sources were not mentioned. Simple press releases and announcements don't constitute WP:SIGCOV. Not one of those appears to be something more than restating a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found these as well 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.★Trekker (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 2: CBR is a situational VG source, and adding these doesn't really serve to make the film any more notable as CBR is already sourced in the article.

3 & 4: promotional interviews centered more on McHale than the film itself.

5: questionable, as site is only a decade old with no editorial oversight or policies on "about us" page.

Thank you for searching and I'm sure I sound like a Debbie Downer but these are just my observations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Siroxo's source analysis. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. With each release of the Legends series it seems that viable coverage gets smaller and smaller. Links provided by Trekker are merely release dates and trailers, neither of which constitute significant coverage. I'm also not seeing such in the sources provided by Siroxo; EoM is a blog, whatever of the IANS article is visible reads like a press release, and just two reviews by reliable sites (CBR and IGN) won't cut it in terms of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the CBR and IGN reviews together with other coverage, enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent coverage of this film is nearly nonexistent. Only two critical reviews from viable sources (with CBR being situational) are not enough to establish notability. The other coverage in the article is BTS content and interviews. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mortal Kombat (film series)#Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match (2023) - CBR if not outright unreliable, can't be used to demonstrate notability, see WP:VG/S#Valnet. That leaves 2 reviews, which is not enough to establish notability (and I'm not sure even if Edge of Madness is a reliable source). --Mika1h (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edge of Madness is not a viable source as it's a blog and accepts submissions from contributors. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify, Edge of Madness appears to be a fairly established webzine with good practices. I linked the masthead above for people to review on their own. They have a head editor, and the founder/critic who wrote this specific piece (different person than the editor) is an established critic and a member of Critics Choice Association (see here), which has selective criteria for membership. Beyond the individual piece, note that they have a limited list of contributors on the masthead, and do not accept guest posts. —siro χ o 00:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does a "full masthead" mean? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean as in Masthead (American publishing). —siro χ o 08:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion occurring. I'm no expert on articles on films but I have closed a lot of AFD discussions and what I remember from them (that is supported by WP:NFOE is that two good film reviews are sufficient to establish notability. Just throwing that observation out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:39, 5 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 Adar Poonawalla (ATD). Daniel (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Poonawalla[edit]

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

This page on Wikipedia was made by a fan club account of her husband, and it has managed to survive for a long time. When it comes to notability, it gets its reputation from her husband rather than having its own. WP:NOTINHERITED WP:NOTRESUME. Charlie (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Charlie (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability shown. The sources are mostly about how nicely the subject dresses when with her husband at gala events. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She hangs out with celebrities and dresses fancily, that's the extent of coverage for this individual. Nothing for notability. Even what's given now in the article, is just confirmation of where she went to school and where she works. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason we can't redirect to her (notable) husband? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As such, there is no reason; "redirection with possibilities" can be an option. However, a collective agreement is necessary for WP:TOOSOON. As the nominator, I have no objections if the choice is redirection or deletion. The final decision should be left to the discretion of the closing admin. Charlie (talk) 03:45, 11 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) NotAGenious (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands national soccer team[edit]

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

This is the same fictional team that has gone through multiple AFD’s and deletions as Marshall Islands national football team and even creation protection. In reality there is nothing. No team, no pitches, no schedule. There are just some rough long term hopes. T v x1 09:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. T v x1 09:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-clearly meets general notability. It has been picked up by numerous major independent news sources around the world. An article for the team that is being built is no different from an article for a structure that is under construction if they both meet notability guidelines. The difference between now and when the article was deleted before is that previously there truly was no mention of the team or any efforts to build it. The situation has changed completely. They will most likely play their first match in 2024. Oh, and there is definitely a stadium. *[43]--Gri3720 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are even sources in the article that call into question the 2024 debut. The person who is allegedly managing the project hasn’t even visited the Marshall Islands at all. This is just something that has been made up by the press. The “stadium” you speak of is not by any means a soccer pitch. T v x1 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first and last paragraphs. He has definitely been there. [44] and since you are a doubter, here is photographic proof. [45]. The stadium may not have nets sitting on it right now, but it is definitely a nice stadium by any standard in Oceania. It seems you have a vague idea about the project but have not been following it closely.--Gri3720 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the nomination, there is a clear sense if GNG which seems to be established. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage from several major news outlets, it’s not really just vague long term hopes. Yoblyblob (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: apart from the fact that we likely need to find some better sources for the "Team image" section, I don't see any problem with this article, to be honest... Oltrepier (talk) 09:09, 10 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) 11:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allott[edit]

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

No reason given on the page to suggest that this was a notable person. I don't see much else which could be added JMWt (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything other that a Burke's peerage mention as "son of" but importance is not inherited. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another in the creating editor's "all deans in the Anglican church are automatically notable" series. No indication that titular subject has notability (independent of the title/role that they held) or has been a core topic of multiple reliable/independent works. As expected by WP:SIGCOV. Certainly all we see here (and all I can find) are directory-style entries. Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apti Ustarkhanov[edit]

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

Doesn't fit into the boxing notability guidelines. Hasn't beaten anyone of note, can't find a history of him being ranked in the top ten by any organization, and the article is of poor quality. I will update the article if it isn't deleted. ZenZekey (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Even after winning the WBO's vacant European super middleweight title, the WBO only ranked him as their 15th best super middleweight which does not meet NBOX's criteria of top 10. My search for sources failed to turn up multiple instances of significant independent coverage. All I found were fight announcements, fight results, and database entries. None of those help meet WP:GNG as any professional fighter would have those. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 10 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) NotAGenious (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Ritchie (Australian rules footballer)[edit]

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

Played a single AFL game. Nothing on the page to show why they would be considered notable. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing in the nomination for deletion to show why it should be deleted. It's referenced to more than just database sources. You expecting more than a recruitment dispute making the papers 100 years ago? The-Pope (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG is clear about the necessary level of sourcing. A player who played a single game at the highest level is not assumed to be notable, therefore !keep have to have good reasons for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The-Pope. Nominator has not made a cogent argument for why the current sourcing, which is to multiple independent reliable sources, does not already prove the subject's notability. Jenks24 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC 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."

There are sources on the page, however reference 6 is a death notice and 4 of the other 5 are very short news articles. Unless you are saying - with additional evidence please - that the panel which prevented him from playing is important, this is news. WP:NOTNEWS. The only other source offered is an encyclopedia of every AFL player who has ever played. Unless that has a very significant entry on this player, that's not good enough. I can't read it, so do let me know how much is there. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misreading of NOTNEWS, which disallows indiscriminate articles on breaking news events with no enduring notability. It is not a prohibition on using newspapers as sources altogether, nor does it license the inference everything reported in a newspaper article is "news" and therefore not permitted to count towards notability. – Teratix ₵ 12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said, nor meant to imply that there is a prohibition on using newspapers as sources altogether. Newspapers are good ways to show notability however in this specific instance we have short news articles on an individual who is basically never mentioned again. He is only mentioned at all because of a one-off event. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another pass at expanding the article today, and it's clear there's much more coverage than just a one-off event. – Teratix ₵ 05:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in The Argus and The Ballarat Star satisfies GNG, especially considered in conjunction with further discussion in The Herald and The Sun. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this move is part of a deliberate, badly informed, historically destructive, and counter-productive ("post-1980 AFL centred") process to eliminate the articles of individual footballers who took part in the early days of the Victorian Football League competition.
One editor, displaying similar inappropriate sentiments, had already removed the important article relating to an allegedly non-notable St Kilda footballer -- "Paddy McGuinness (Australian footballer) (see List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service#World War I) -- who, also, died while serving with the AIF.
Fortunately, I was able to transfer some of the references to the (now deleted) item in the list of war dead.
For the deleted article, see: [46].
As a consequence of the (unwarranted) deletion of the McGuinness article, if one clicks on the "blue link" at "Paddy McGuinness", "1901" at List of St Kilda Football Club players#1900s one is immediately loop-redirected to List of St Kilda Football Club players (i.e. the top of the same page).
As an additional protest, this wilful destruction of the Wikipedia's capacity to present the only complete, comprehensive collection of (the finite number of) pre-AFL, VFL footballers has been made additionally significant (and salient) by the unexpected loss to dedicated VFL historians of the extremely valuable resource known as Boyles Football Photos: see [47].
This item (and others like it) must not be deleted. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the efforts taken since the nomination demonstrate enough coverage of his wider football career to meet a relatively low WP:GNG bar – and while he's a little bit WP:SINGLEEVENTy, with the extra coverage of his country career I'm comfortable to support keeping this article. There's many less-covered and less notable low game VFL footballers out there whom I'd be deleting ahead of Ritchie. Aspirex (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 20 references to a handful of well established notable newspapers clearly passes WP:GNG. What a joke of a nomination (though it is a bit funny as he's a Carlton player ;) ) --SuperJew (talk) 06:18, 12 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!} 07:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KCTB-LP[edit]

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

This was a short-lived LPFM station that existed primarily to provide emergency information, with classic country music as filler when there were no emergencies. Our standards for notability have tightened over the years; it's hard to imagine that this comes anywhere near meeting today's GNG. (There is also mention of an earlier station with the KCTB-FM call sign, but if anything more were to surface about that station it wouldn't go in this article anyway.)

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes Disaster and Emergency Services, the operator of this station, also operated several other similar stations (which seemed to last only a few years longer than KCTB), whose articles are also being nominated:

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

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

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

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

Another station that was part of this "network", KCTQ-LP, recently had its article deleted via PROD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, these stations were effectively automated public address systems in small communities. Interesting in the context of a database of small radio stations, but no assertion of notability and unlikely to be any given the nature of the station. Had these stations actually played a part in a notable emergency incident at some point, they could be mentioned in the article for that incident, but it seems that they came on for a year or so and were never used. Flip Format (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, regretfully, as the network was a great idea but never really gelled in reality (it doesn't help that LPFM in the US was lead-piped by commercial interests who don't want competition or prefer certain other types of programming). Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note As author of the KCTB page, I'm fine with deletion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear GNG fail that only the change in direction in notability guidelines in the last couple of years pointed out. The KCTB-FM in Cut Bank is unrelated and might not even be a GNG pass; it was on the air from late 1983 until early 1989 before closing for economic reasons. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:43, 6 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) 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Miles Cheong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Miles Cheong. Unfortunately, because the page is not identical to the previously deleted version, it is ineligible for WP:G4. PROD was also declined because of the previous AfD. In that discussion, there was strong consensus that the subject is a non-notable "simp and troll", as articulated by Vice. Nothing has changed in the three months since. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Internet, and Malaysia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and the previous deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV as it stands. Happy to reconsider my vote if suitable sources can be found. User:Let'srun 14:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual has received coverage in reliable sources spanning a considerable period of time, including clearly significant coverage, like the 2012 Daily Dot piece about him being dismissed from Reddit. It's unfortunate that he hasn't received something like a profile, but RS clearly consider him notable given the frequency at which his name is mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is more of a procedural one because G4 and PROD don't apply. There was already consensus on this last time (not that consensus can't change, but literally nothing has changed in the past three months). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the comments in the previous AFD, the previous incarnation looks to have been more weakly sourced, though of course I have no way of viewing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an archived version. Isi96 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a completely different article, a borderline stub with much weaker sourcing. You've done a good job finding sources discussing this individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hemiauchenia. Isi96 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Isi96 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Let'srun. Demoxica (talk) 03:46, 31 October 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. Winkie, Luke (2022-12-01). "The Redpilling of Elon Musk Isn't Funny". Slate. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "Ever since Elon Musk completed his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in October, he’s been replying to the tweets of a man named Ian Miles Cheong on a near weekly basis. Cheong is a minor flunky of the bygone MAGA cultural revolution; like his contemporary Milo Yiannopoulos, he first came to prominence in 2014, during Gamergate ... Cheong maintains an atrophying empire (read: about 300,000 Twitter followers) by brazenly promoting the most unhinged policy proposals imaginable—like mandatory capital punishment for all shoplifters—which are eagerly lapped up by his audience, a group that seems to comprise mostly men who owe at least one of their children a phone call."
2. "Malaysia Man Criticized After Naming Black Man 'Number One Suspect' in Us Shooting". Coconuts Media. 2020-09-17. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "A Malaysia man who actively tweets about US current affairs is being slammed for falsely identifying a suspect in Saturday’s shooting of two Los Angeles police officers. Ian Miles Cheong, known as Twitter user @Stillgray, wrote Monday that ... Thousands continue to criticize Cheong online today and called on Twitter to take action against his account. For years, Cheong has been posting largely right-wing views on US politics to his verified account, where he has amassed more than 300,000 followers. It was only last year when he revealed that he lives on the other side of the world, in Malaysia. ... This is not the first time Cheong has propagated inaccurate information. Twitter suspended his account for seven days last month after the Donald Trump-supporter wrote about Black Lives Matter protesters burning “a stack” of bibles in Portland when only one was on fire. It is not clear where in Malaysia he lives, but data revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists linked him to an address in Ipoh, Perak and an offshore company called Cyber Level Limited it said was registered in the Bahamas."
3. Rosenberg, Matthew; Barnes, Julian E. (2020-08-11). "A Bible Burning, a Russian News Agency and a Story Too Good to Check Out". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "But before it disappeared, the tweet was picked up by a Malaysian named Ian Miles Cheong who has amassed a large Twitter following by playing a right-wing American raconteur on social media. ... Mr. Cheong added his own commentary to the initial tweet, wildly exaggerating what the Ruptly video showed. ... It was Mr. Cheong whose tweet spurred the younger Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz and numerous other high-profile Republicans to weigh in.
4. Thalen, Mikael (2020-06-17). "Who is Ian Miles Cheong, and why does the internet care where he lives?". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "Known best for his commentary on Twitter, Cheong has made a name for himself in right-wing circles by frequently weighing in on U.S. politics. Long before his foray into U.S. domestic issues, Cheong was best known for his work as a gaming journalist and for his role as an influential moderator on Reddit. Cheong is also known for his involvement in Gamergate, a term used to describe a controversy between primarily male gamers and female game developers that led to a widespread harassment campaign in 2014. Initially, Cheong, who described himself as a “turbo-feminist” at the time, leaped to the defense of female game developers such as Zoe Quinn. But Cheong’s politics would begin shifting to the far-right as the years went on."
5. Morris, Kevin (2012-04-03). "Reddit moderator banned for selling his influence: As SolInvictus, Ian Miles Cheong moderated some of Reddit's most popular sections. He was also a "social media consultant" for hire". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "Ian Miles Cheong had a spamming problem. The journalist and editor of gaming site Gameranx had for years promoted his content on social news site Reddit, where, under the pseudonym SolInvictus, he served as a volunteer moderator at some of the site’s most trafficked forums. At some point, redditors learned about Cheong’s surreptitious link-hawking and tipped off the site’s staff in January. Reddit, which sees 35 million unique visitors a month and is the self-proclaimed “front page of the Internet,” banned him about a month later."
6. Morris, Kevin (2012-03-26). "Why Reddit banned influential moderator Ian Miles Cheong. Known on Reddit as solinvcitus, Cheong submitted links to a gaming site he edited and possibly profited as a result". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-11-02.
  The article notes: "So why did it take Reddit so long to ban chronic spammer Ian Miles Cheong ,the news editor of gaming site Gameranx and a top Reddit moderator? Under the psuedonym SolInvictus, Cheong had inserted himself as a moderator at many of Reddit’s largest forums, including r/AskReddit, r/Politics, r/WTF, and r/TodayILearned, all of which boast more than 1 million subscribers. Meanwhile, he relentlessly promoted content from Gameranx and other sites, including news site Global Post, and Web culture site Uproxx. It’s not clear what formal association, if any, Cheong had with the latter sites, though they comprised an overwhelming majority of his submissions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ian Miles Cheong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It passes GNG, by very little. The Daily Dot, as provided above, is generally not reliable, but Slate and the New York Times are pretty good for me. Coconuts seems to be a reliable news website with fact-checking and reasonable editorial policies. CBR is a pop culture website and I don't know where editors stand on using these publications on BLPs, so I won't make any statement on this one. SparklyNights 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source also seems good and covers him in some depth. The publication also has public editorial policies: "Mashable makes every effort to correct errors. Grammar, spelling, and style errors will be corrected in the text. If the error is factual, the correction will include an editor’s acknowledgment at the bottom of the story." SparklyNights 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per the sources found by others, there appears to be enough WP:GNG level coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to weak delete. I appreciate Cunard's source review, but I don't think the brief mentions of Cheong in those sources are significant coverage. All they amounts to is "Cheong is a right-wing troll who people dislike". voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Daily Dot is not reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mentions in NYT & Slate are non-WP:SIGCOV; the sources with the most SIGCOV are WP:MREL (like Daily Dot), and that's not good enough to base a BLP on. WP:N requires that sources be "reliable"; MREL is one step below that. Mashable, proposed above, has already been evaluated by the community to be MREL too. Pop-culture sites (CBR) can be fine to use in BLPs, but I wouldn't base notability on them. "Coconuts" hasn't been discussed at WP:RSN, and calls itself an "alternative media company" whose goal is to "inform and entertain"; I'd lean on the cautious side and treat them as MREL too. Besides the question of notability, the current state of the article is a problem, as MREL sources shouldn't constitute a significant portion of a BLP; that's a dueness issue. DFlhb (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether recently found sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Coverage of Cheong either comes from weak sources (like the Daily Dot) or only gets a passing mention in more reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per DFlhb and others. Regardless of whether we can pluck a couple sentences out of some websites that mention that he ate a hot dog in 2017 and stepped in a puddle in 2021 or whatever, I don't think any of these really talk about him in depth beyond that. The article, as it exists right now, kind of reads like a random coatrack of detritus: he went viral by making a dumb tweet in 2017, then later, he went viral by making a dumb tweet in 2018, then later, he shocked everybody by making a dumb tweet in 2019, etc etc. Same deal as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Barlow — several passing mentions of someone being a clown on Twitter is not really notability. jp×g 🗯️ 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The impression I get from reviewing the sources is that this is an article that compiles a long list of trivial references to what the subject has said. Many of the articles are trivial or have a sort of tabloid tenor to them. These sources strike me as no different than, say, creating an article for the Vörös Twins on the basis of every article that is like "Who Are The Da Vinki Twins?" or "The Da Vinki Guys Say Something Hilarious In Latest Vine". The other stuff about Cheong's editorial contributions strike me as lacking the depth to sustain a notable article on their own. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much of the sourcing is either passing mentions pulled from sources about other subjects, or comes from the WP:DAILYDOT, which isn't strong enough sourcing for a contentious WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 9 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!} 03:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been considered deities[edit]

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

Reason no original research E65B0DCE58CBECF21E7C9FF7318F3B57 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to be an incomplete listification of Category:Deified people, where it appears in a hatnote. Doesn't smell like OR exactly; more like a cross-namespace POVFORK. Seems to fail LISTCRIT due to unclear inclusion criteria, given the much narrower scope than the category it purports to describe. Some of the writeups are poor. Some also lack citations, which are likely to be found in the linked articles. Folly Mox (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general criterion of WP:NLIST. [48][49][50] reviewing [51]. Other texts like [52], [53] There are indeed some clear ways to improve this, including requiring RS for each entry, improving the summaries, etc. —siro χ o 05:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty good list in keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists guidelines. The Category:Deified people at the bottom would be correct to be there. Net positive for Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It should be improved, not deleted in this case. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 15:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepExpand, improve as needed. AFD is not the place for cleanup. This is a notable topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above: notable topic, most members meet WP:NLIST. Policy says keep.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:DINC. The concept is widely referred to in secondary and tertiary literature, and the examples are valid (if woefully slishod and incomplete). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST and the comments above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North East College Lacrosse League[edit]

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

Subject is a lacrosse league which does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ephemeral club-level competition, far below any notability standard, and certainly doesn't meet the GNG beyond threadbare WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. Ravenswing 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 11 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!} 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Current[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is some trivial coverage such as [54] and [55] but nothing significant Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep this is what I find. [56], [57]. Should be enough for a weak keep.
Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, both are routine coverage. Now if more sources that are routine are found, perhaps it goes into keep territory. How many sources that are routine are needed ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what are we talking about, this athlete was just a member of the world championships team in august and the pan am team in chile right now. She has her own page on the Team Canada Olympics site? How could this possibly not be kept 123456789athletics (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

check under the external links, she has recognition by the world athletes governing body for a top 8 placement (highly significant in the athletes realm) and she has her own olympics page. 123456789athletics (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted !keep, more sources would help, but doesn't change anything. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's also this one already in the article and others from the The London Free Press. And other mentions such at [58] and interviews such as [59]. As for WP:ROUTINE it doesn't extend to athletes. It's about Events, and it's why we don't write a 10 Wikipedia articles for this weeks 10 Premier League matches. Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 5 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.