Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 08	November 10 >

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 14:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014 DonaldD23 talk to me 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Closest thing I could find to a source for notability was this:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/tu-mere-agal-bagal-hai-actors-give-part-of-income-for-charity/articleshow/39298147.cms Flurrious (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only coverage appears to be two promotional blurbs before it started airing and then one blurb about the cast doing some promotional charity work outside of the actual show. the show doesnt even appear to have run a year because looking at the cast pages, most of the cast were in other shows later in the same year. pretty much the only thing to say about the show is "for a brief time, it existed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.29 (talk) 14:11, 16 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!} 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Glasgow Cathcart by-election[edit]

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

No references provided, and lack of significant coverage of the event. 1keyhole (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glasgow Cathcart (Scottish Parliament constituency). There is very brief coverage in Construction News and The Herald, and an article in the Times, but that's not enough to satsify WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Previous elections in the constituency have been covered in the main article, so it would be appropriate to put the results there; after stripping off the unsourced commentary, of course. Liu1126 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After reading newer comments and another search for sources, I found an article from the BBC and another article from the Times, in addition to the sources I listed in my previous comment. Given these new circumstances, I am changing my recommendation to keep. Liu1126 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Glasgow Cathcart (Scottish Parliament constituency) Merge per WP:ATD. Previous elections are covered on the page. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By-election are typically considered to be notable. I was able to find a couple sources through a cursory search, such as [1]. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election to national parliament so implied notability. Coverage exists and has been found. doktorb _words^deeds 05:08, 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!} 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was a by-election to a major legislature which had plenty of coverage at the time in every major Scottish media outlet. There is quite a bit on the BBC news website for example including over its timing. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 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 merge‎ to Grammaticalization. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specialization (linguistics)[edit]

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

This topic is not notable; it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. The principles of grammaticalization came up by Paul J. Hopper aren't paid much attention in the field of linguistics as a whole and there are other linguistic topics with the same name that are much more notable. – Treetoes023 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor and they are the other 4 principles of grammaticalization came up by Paul J. Hopper, so the reasons for deletion apply to these articles too:

– Treetoes023 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to grammaticalization. It is not true that Hopper's work is not studied in linguistics. It is arguably true, though, that these principles are too specific to warrant entire articles. Cnilep (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "persistence" is kept (and I had trouble finding sufficient sources), it would need a rename as this concept is not the only or primary use of "persistence" as a technical term in linguistics, eg. see [2] (t · c) buidhe 19:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: This would also apply to "divergence", since the primary use of "divergence" in linguistics is the process whereby languages change in different ways in different places (leading to the creation of new dialects and languages). I assume that the other 3 articles I've nominated are also not the primary usages of their respective terms either. – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Some opinions on this bundled nomination would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - With no prejudice toward future expansion if additional sources are found. Seems harmless, since they're all clear sub-concepts of grammaticalization. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szilárd Kovács[edit]

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

Kovács played 2 games as a professional before disappearing into the semi-pro/amateur tiers of Hungary. In my searches, I couldn't find anything that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Please note that DVTK is not an independent source as it is the website for Diósgyőri VTK. From independent sources, I could only find trivial mentions like BOON and Nemzeti Sport, which don't confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage to meet GNG or SPORTBASIC and there is no evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 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 redirect‎ to List of natural monuments in Karnali Province. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of natural monuments in Kalikot[edit]

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

I fail to see the use of having a page for the Nepali national monuments in Kalikot District, as it's not the district Kathmandu is located in. Not to mention, this article is already covered by List of natural monuments in Karnali Province, because Kalikot District is located in Karnali Province. Ré union! 22:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of natural monuments in Karnali Province —siro χ o 23:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing the nominator didn't even read the title of the article correctly before nominating this? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created 9 years ago and has "Upload Photo" appearing instead of pictures. Since List of natural monuments in Karnali Province already exist, no sense for this one to be here. It also has most of its photos appearing as "upload photo". Is that just a bug, or is it always like that? Dream Focus 07:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of natural monuments in Karnali Province. DUP CFORK with no additional value. // Timothy :: talk 08:17, 16 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 Sitalkuchi#Education. Sourcing is insufficient for a separate article Star Mississippi 03:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baramaricha Delwar Hossain High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, user is creating a large number of these. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say they are making a large number of these. I could only see that they have created 2 pages. Did you mix that up with someone else? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initial searches show next to nothing except by a plain Google search, and that doesn't yield anything reliable. The school's website is only accessible from an archive.org link and provides little. The school seems to exist but English language sources are lacking. It may be there are sources in another language? Also is it possible that the school goes by another name in sources? I tried some obvious variations. Strongly inclined to delete at this stage, but will wit to see if anything else turns up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is the current school website: https://school.banglarshiksha.gov.in/ws/website/index/19031008502 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This page contains the claim it was founded 1872, and It was recognised as a High School w.e.f 01/01/1984. The name of the school from Maricha High School to Baramaricha Delwar Hossain High School(H.S.) in the memory of the first Head Master Late Delwar Hossain. The school was upgraded to a higher seconday[sic] school in the accademic[sic] session 2004-2005. It is not clear if the name was changed in 1984 or more recently but the name change helps explain the lack of sources. Searches on "Maricha High School" turn up two book mentions, but these are directories, and one news mention. We are still well short of WP:SIGCOV but there may be non English coverage, and there are search variations to try still. Can anyone help with non English searches? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Due to the Fact That it has been a State School, Elementary School, Junior High School, & High School throughout its history makes it even more complicated to find sources, we would have to search "Maricha Elementary School", "Maricha State School", "Maricha High School", "Marica Junior High", and the same searches i just said but replace "Maricha" with "Baramaricha Delwar Hossain", and I don't think any of us have time to individualy perform that task, It would require a large Task Force. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I feel like we should make a task force for it because of this: "Baramaricha Delwar Hossain (X+2) High School , the oldest educational institution of Coochbehar Dristrict, situates under Sitalkuchi Block of Mathabhanga Sub-Division. It is named in memory of Delwar Hossain, was an asstt. teacher of the school."^[1]😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL: BARA MARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL". BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL. 2010-12-08. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If notability cannot be established merge verifiable content and redirect to Sitalkuchi#Education as the lowest level locality. Baramaricha village would have been preferable. Rupples (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- The sources cited prove the school is notable, but due to the name changes in its history we would need a big taskforce to find sources to improve the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment- We need someone to help with finding non-english coverage, and possibly finding offline coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sitalkuchi#Education per Rupples. There is a problem with Indian schools in that we often cannot locate the sources to show notability for schools that would likely be found to be notable if they were in, say, the US. I am reluctant to !vote delete for schools that I feel should be notable, but the question is always whether an actual encyclopaedic page can be written about the subjct. In the absence of sources, the answer to that is no. There is a small amount of verifiable information on this page that can be preserved in the encyclopaedia with merge as a WP:ATD. Furthermore, placing it on that page is perhaps better. The merge will create a redirect there, so searches for this page will work and the information here will be placed into a context that is useful to the reader. This would be wiyhout prejudice to the possibility of re-creating the page from the redirect in the future should sources be found sufficient to demonstrate notability and write the page encyclopaedically. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough sources to keep, this following quote proves that it is notable: "Baramaricha Delwar Hossain (X+2) High School , the oldest educational institution of Coochbehar Dristrict, situates under Sitalkuchi Block of Mathabhanga Sub-Division. It is named in memory of Delwar Hossain, was an asstt. teacher of the school."^[1] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from blogspot (self published, not reliable) and looks neither independent nor secondary to me. The fact it claims to be the oldest school in the district might be indicative of notability, and I acknowledge that above. But my other comments pertain. We don't actually have any suitable sources. Sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep or Merge- Although I would prefer to keep this page I do admit the chances are very slim of us finding anyone to help with non-english & offline sources. I would not be satisfied with a redirect though. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sitalkuchi#Education only properly sourced information into target, if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article are found it can be recreated. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL: BARA MARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL". BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL. 2010-12-08. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luntinmang Haokip[edit]

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

The subject, an Indian footballer, played a single pro game almost 5 years ago. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. This was about all I found. JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources other than Soccerway. As he is an active athlete, more details should be provided. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 14 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!} 03:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Di Gennaro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a former player with a marginal career in the minor divisions. All references mentioned are just passing references, transfer reports and non-independent sources from involved parties, and therefore cannot be considered as WP:SIGCOV. I could not find anything significant on the internet through a google search [3] (please bear in mind he shares the same exact name with an unrelated Italian actor who has an article in the Italian Wikipedia). Angelo (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail GNG by quite some way. I am ignoring any club website sources as these are not independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 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 Music of Mauritius. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritian hip hop[edit]

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

this does not seem to be notable on its own, and it is written like a school project. at the very least, TNT DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Mauritius. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify to three or four sentences, subject meets the GNG (one source: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Merge, unfortunately this appears to be the only broad overview source, as opposed to a profile of an individual rapper/group Mach61 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music of Mauritius: There are insufficient sources to keep this article. A redirect is the best option I can think of. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:35, 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 exoplanets discovered in 2023. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOI 139[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2023, although the title is wrong and should be hyphenated both for consistency and per usage in sources. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2023. Good lists that can convey the same level of detail are preferable to lots of little independent stubs in terms of ongoing oversight.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect per all above. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Azadi Far[edit]

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

Not notable person.I can't find any reliable source. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find multiple cases of significant independent coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG since database entries do not show WP notability. He does not meet the notability criteria for either MMA fighters or actors. There are no sources given to back up a claim of 4 world championships, especially since he's had a total of 5 MMA fights, all in very minor organizations. Fightmatrix.com does not list him at all and the unsourced claims of being the 47th ranked middleweight and 25th ranked lightweight in the Middle East also fail to show WP notability. IMDB shows him with two minor roles and the Iranian WP listing for Texas 2 doesn't mention him at all. Papaursa (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many mistakes. Very minor roles. Fails WP:GNG with no claim to notability. Being friends with a notable person does not give the subject more notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:36, 13 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 Comal Independent School District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Church Hill Middle School[edit]

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

Only trivial coverage in school listing websites. A slightly longer draft exists at Draft:Church Hill Middle School. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Website of the School contains a bunch of information about it. Would you like me to use that source? WikiKermit5 (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more sources. Please let it stay. WikiKermit5 (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added stuff a citation from a government website. WikiKermit5 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Comal Independent School District. Fails WP:GNG, which is to be expected, as most middle schools aren't notable. My BEFORE search found nothing to indicate this school would be an exception to the norm. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Comal Independent School District. Pichpich (talk) 00:20, 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!} 22:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yanga Gcilisha[edit]

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

If this is somehow kept, the article should be moved to Mapogo Maphakane as I can't find any sources that show "Yanga" or "Gcilisha" for this guy except sites that are obvious Wikipedia mirrors. In any case, I'm struggling to see how WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5 might be met. Sowetan Live is a trivial mention, and SNL24 mentions him in an incident where a referee showed him 2 yellow cards and forgot to send him off. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Subject fails WP:FOOTBALLER, the only cited source on the article is a broken link, and per nom I also found nothing but passing mentions on yellow cards and birthday. No SiGCOV, fails GNG, and ANYBiO. dxneo (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:48, 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!} 22:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Agrono[edit]

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

There ~~were two low-level Colombian footballers with this name~~ was one player with this name but it isn't the person who is the subject of this article. The other one is James Agrono Hurtado. I can't really find much about Agrono Saénz (see my comment below which explains the likely foul play here) and can't find anything that complies with WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Jávea, which mentions a midfielder of this name but this is more likely to be Agrono Hurtado since 'Agrono Saénz' is apparently a defender. I also found a passing mention in El Espectador, which is worthless and I have no idea which Agrono it refers to as there is no useful info. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per my comment here, it's probable that this article has been created under the wrong name for the player. The article creator seems to have a history of creating articles on real footballers but under false names. FBRef and Playmaker Stats will show the false names but that's because those sites seem to get their information from Wikipedia, in my experience. I believe that the correct name for this player is Jonathan Sáenz Álvarez, although the DOB is different, the career history, height and position are a perfect match. If this footballer turns out to be notable, then the article should be moved to Jonathan Sáenz without leaving a redirect. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easy call. Not even close to meeting WP:GNG guidelines. As noted above, it’s not even clear this is a real person or that page wasn’t created as a joke or in error. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VSDX Annotator[edit]

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

Lackluster references, #1 is an ad, #2 and #4 are down but probably also profiles, #3 is non-independent. Google search doesn't reveal anything better. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG based on my search results. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Rapolo[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in Argentine media. The best mentions that I can find for Gastón Silva is an image caption in Clarín and Solo Ascenso, which mentions him once in a long list of players. I can't find anything decent under the name of 'Gastón Rapolo' at all. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. If somehow kept, this should be moved to Gastón Silva (Argentine footballer) or some other suitable title to reflect that sources seem to have his surname down as 'Silva', including the sole source already used (Soccerway). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 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!} 22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Independent Party (Ireland)[edit]

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

This tagged for WP:GNG in May by Guliolopez. A group that failed to organise enough to register or contest under a banner does not reach notability enough. Mere mentions of it considering registration as are referenced here should not be sufficient coverage to maintain the page here. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, the topic/org doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. In honesty the article was created far WP:TOOSOON (originating just 2 weeks after the party's formal launch. 14 Jan 2014 > 29 Jan 2014. And ahead of any material [non-launch/non-primary] coverage). I was barely able to scrabble together a small number of sources to establish even the basics (existence/creation/etc) and no sources to establish anything beyond that (not even finding sources to confirm continued existence or disestablishment). While, in honesty, I'd like to be able to recommend redirection (as an WP:ATD), I can't fathom where a redirect would "go". (As neither of the associated people are notable enough for a standalone article and the pre-existing "former parties" section of the related list article was [for reasons I'm not sure I understand or agree with] replaced with a navbox template...) Guliolopez (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - did a quick check just now, as this was only a vague "heard of on the radio topic" and just don't find backing to reach minimum policy requirements (ORG, GNG, VER, SIGCOV, etc.). It existed, then it probably didn't... Like another nomination today, could probably be captured in a "minor parties in Ireland" type article, perhaps a table in a List article, but no such thing exists now, and what minimal data there is can be found again should such a list be created. SeoR (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a minor blip that amounted to nothing and did nothing notable or important. Most people were unaware of its existence. Spideog (talk) 21:46, 16 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 Nomintation Withdrawn‎. I withdraw the nomination (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Mägi-Efert[edit]

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

Non-Notable Actress, only sources i can find are WP:ROUTINE Coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. http://etbl.teatriliit.ee/artikkel/m%C3%A4gi-efert_marin1 is a serious source, but seems to be only one--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She isn't "non-notable". She has an entry at Eesti Entsüklopeedia/Eesti Teatriliit. There are subtstantive articles (more than "routine") about her in Õhtuleht (here and here ) and in Postimees (here and here). Postimees and Õhtuleht are the largest dailies in Estonia. Smaller articles (but still full articles) in Postimees (here and here), Kroonika (here and here). And that was with just a cursory search. I don't think you did a proper WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ohtuleht~~ entsyklopeedia is mostly a database & does not pass WP:SIGCOV, all 4 of those Postimees articles are WP:ROUTINE, Kroonika Articles are WP:ROUTINE. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Õhtuleht isn't a database. It's the largest Estonian entertainment daily newspaper in Estonia and the articles easily pass WP:SIGCOV. The first two Postimees articles are in depth and explicitly about the subject. None are merely "routine" coverage. ExRat (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whoops fixed the name, i meant entsyklopeedia not Ohtuleht. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti Entsüklopeedia isn't a "database". It's literally the digitized Estonian encyclopedia. Eesti Teatrillit is the same. Only notable people have entries. ExRat (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you "she had a baby", "She played this role", "she did this" isn't routine coverage??? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In depth articles in major daily newspapers covering an actress's career and playing "this role" and "doing this" are indeed not routine announcements. ExRat (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per entry in the non-profit, EU-backed national Estonian Encyclopedia as noted by ExRat above. See WP:ANYBIO. Also notable per ExRat's 6 media article citations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination Withdrawn 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:32, 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Miyashiro[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced BLP with no signs of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Appears to have had 65 minutes of play time in 2012/2013 in the second division of the Argentine football league system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Suárez (footballer)[edit]

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Highest level of success appears to be minor playtime in the second tier professional football league in Paraguay (38 minutes) with a fair bit of play time in 2013 in the third tier of the Chilean system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damián París[edit]

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

Non-notable association football player. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Played in the fourth level of the Argentine football league system and fifth level of the Chilean one. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Lima[edit]

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

Unreferenced bio of an association football player who does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG. It looks like they've only played in lower level leagues and they lack WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn’t seem to be much, if any, WP:Notability here. This doesn’t rise to the level of meriting his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MadStone[edit]

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

I was able to find reviews from only two outlets: IGN and WiiWare World. The latter was folded into Nintendo Life, so the NL review is just a duplicate of that one. QuietCicada - Talk 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got a WP:OFFLINE review in Nintendo Power: Link and Club Nintendo: Link. As Wikipedia does not ignore sources just because they aren't online, the article seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources given in the above comment. seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 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 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 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shavel[edit]

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

Shavel appeared to have a very brief pro career and I can't find any significant coverage per WP:GNG or even the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best that I could find were Football.by, an U16 squad list and BSU, an announcement of being part of the squad that reached the second qualifying round of the UEFA Youth League. These are very minor mentions of youth achievements and hence fall foul of WP:YOUNGATH requirements too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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. Strong consensus, retracting deletion proposal. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 14:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Astra Planeta[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM or even a hoax. @Rwflammang has shown that it is not a proper Latin term and the scant sources I have been able to find seem to use Wikipedia as a source, so WP:CIRCULAR. I recommend deletion as damage control, because it seems we are allowing this misconception to spread. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 13:32, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but P Aculeius, has found a reliable source for this topic. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources only mention the planetae, which are covered at Classical planet. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 00:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Working on it today—needs more sources, and the list will be reworked—but why nominate it for deletion while it was being rewritten with viable sources? That's really unhelpful. P Aculeius (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of your sources mention the term astra planeta outright? The sources you've added don't seem to, and it appears you're rewriting the classical planet article now. We discussed deleting it before you began the rewrite specifically because the term itself doesn't make sense and because it appears to be a creation of the admin of theoi.com. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title is nonsensical, probably because the article was written without the aid of reliable sources. It can easily be moved to a more appropriate title, and should be—I meant to rewrite and source what I could before moving it, to better justify deprodding the article this morning. Unfortunately, the article was hastily nominated for deletion after I deprodded it, and before I could revise more than the lead section. AfD is not a substitute for a discussion about the article title.

I believe you'll find that this does not duplicate the contents of "classical planet". That's a broad article that discusses the general awareness of the seven planets (including the sun and moon) in various cultures throughout history, barely touching on the knowledge or suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers, and consisting primarily of tables showing their names in the ancient near east, and cultural/astrological associations from medieval Europe to the present—including astrological symbols, the names of days of the week, and alchemical associations.

This article narrowly focuses on the planets as understood and described by Greek and Roman astronomers, and barely touches on astrology, leaving all of the other topics for "classical planets". Thus far I've really just mined one detailed source, and checked some of the Greek writers it cited specifically enough to cite directly. Other sources are certainly available; I haven't checked Harper's, which sometimes duplicates the structure of articles in the DGRA with variably greater or lesser detail; but there may be further material worth including in the DGRBM under the deities or the writers cited in the DGRA article. It's also likely that modern astronomical sources would be good to cite, at least to compare the Greek observations with current knowledge; but I didn't have time to do that. If someone reads German well, I'm sure some useful details can be found in PW. P Aculeius (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, I've now moved it to what seemed like the obvious title, so where "astra planeta" came from and whether it can be supported by any good source seems like a moot point. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. The article adds nothing to the already existing Classical planet article, unless you count (A) a phony Latin title, and (B) the unsourced notion that these five particular planets were treated as members of a different class than the other two planets. Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title should no longer be an issue—after spending much of the day rewriting this article, I've moved it to a more appropriate title supported by reliable secondary sources. It does indeed add a great deal that isn't covered by "classical planet", and would be out of place there. Merely because this article could fall under the same scope doesn't mean that it should be merged into it, given that most of that article concerns anything but the discussions and suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers. There's no good reason to combine the contents of this article with tables showing the names of the planets in various near eastern cultures, the names of days of the week in European cultures, astrological symbols, association with alchemical materials, and soforth. As for the notion that the first five planets were treated differently than the sun and moon, that is both discussed and sourced in the article as it now stands; some scholars did regard them as another type of thing, others didn't. It's a minor point, and really not relevant to AfD. P Aculeius (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect it seems this article is not really related to the original Astra Planeta article now buy something different entirely. It was originally proposed for deletion because the term was a WP:NEOLOGISM and/or a WP:HOAX and you gave no indication you were changing the name (which doesn't really make sense to do here anyway) and we were trying to get it deleted before it could mislead more people into thinking that "Astra Planeta" is anything but a modern coining. In hindsight you should have created the Planetae article separately (or just added it to the classical planet article as was initially proposed) and allowed the erroneous Astra Planeta to be deleted; now we've got to wait for this deletion discussion to close and then propose the redirect for deletion. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 01:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the article last night and this morning, I decided to look for more information before deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. I didn't find the individual names listed separately in the DGRBM, but I did find all of them listed in the "Planetae" article in the DGRG—which said a great deal of what was in the article already, but more clearly and without a lot of the fluff that probably originated at Theoi.com or whatever sources were consulted by that site's authors.

It seemed apparent to me that the "Planetae" article was about the same subject, just much better and more scholarly. What was called for was to rewrite/replace the messy, unsourced paragraphs with something coherent and organized. But I think it's still the same subject; I don't know where the title "astra planeta" came from, but it's probably just a misunderstanding of something said in a source like the one I used to restructure the article today. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a valid source eventually, although it doesn't seem to be the best or most widely-used name for the subject.

And technically we don't have to wait for anything—the nominator could choose to withdraw the AfD nomination. But it's not a huge deal if it sits here for a week, as long as we're not still fighting about neologisms and hoaxes—it was always a valid subject, just based on a poor source and badly confused under a name that obviously isn't ideal. But valid articles created under bad names are nothing new, and the way to deal with them is by moving them to better names—or if there's disagreement about what the name should be, then a talk page discussion. In this case, the best name seemed obvious, and it wasn't already occupied by another article. There's no advantage to be gained by dynamiting the article, just so that nobody can ever see what it originally looked like. Nobody's harmed because some previous version of an article that was poorly written and sourced is still archived somewhere—even if it's deleted, there's still an archive, just not one visible to or accessible by most editors. And as poorly written as it was, the previous version doesn't need to be hidden away. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name "astra planeta" is almost certainly a botched translation of "wandering star" by a neopagn who doesn't understand Latin. As I've mentioned, it does occur in some scholarly sources -- but these sources seem to have used theoi.com and the Wikipedia page.

As to whether I can withdraw the AfD -- I actually can't, so long as there are "delete" votes. So @Rwflammang would have to strike their vote first. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my vote stricken. I can't really recall how to do that formally. Rwflammang (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have obviated both of my objections, (A) and (B), and added quite a bit of information to boot. Issues involving any potential merges or name changes should be discussed seperately, i.e. elsewhere. I am sorry that your rather outside-the-box solution to these problems caught me unaware. Rwflammang (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the work of P Aculeius this article is well worth keeping. I don't see any problems with it being separate to Classical planet, as that article seems to be different in content and scope. To what degree this actually constitutes a "keep" of the "Astra planeta" article is debatable, as the current article is no longer really about the same topic, the supposed group of mythological personifications who are children of Eos and Astraeus (an invention of Theoi.com). The original article should have been deleted, but with the recent changes it now covers a genuine encyclopedic topic, and there is no reason for this current article to be removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this new Planetae article is well worth keeping, but it is now problematically (and unfortunately) made on the corpse of what appears to be a hoax and/or neologism article. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 01:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article as it stood before I started working on salvaging it seemed to be the same as the current subject of the article. It was just buried in a mess of disorganized and unsourced details, some of which seemed random or improbable—additions to the basic topic from Theoi.com or somewhere else. But the core of the article was always the five (or seven, or ten) planets discussed in Greek and Roman sources, so I don't think it's relevant that the old title was potentially a neologism (we don't know for sure, and the point is moot now).

A hoax would be if the subject were made up out of thin air, or if the authors made up the details as they went along. But the subject clearly wasn't made up, and if the details came from a poor source, that still doesn't make it a hoax. The solution was to replace poorly-sourced and slightly incoherent or nonsensical material with what scholarly sources had to say on the topic. It doesn't matter that the previous fluff is still part of the article history; if poorly-sourced, unsourced, incorrect, or incoherent points made on Wikipedia rendered articles forever contaminated, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all. We don't need to cover up poor research; the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not hunt down and erase heresy. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I believe Wikipedia has a duty to "cover up" poor research if it is misleading and I believe that our article has misled a number of people, even in scholarly and academic publications. Put simply, there is no such thing as the "astra planeta" and we should no give any currency to such an idea. Here I'm concerned about the redirect, rather than the Planetae article which is undoubtedly worth keeping. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no articles link to the redirect, I've deleted it. Paul August ☎ 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and it looks like @Rwflammang has struck his keep vote. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_discuss 14:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but do not redir. The original title had me all geared up for Delete, but the rewrite and new title make for a strong article with real potential for improvement over time. Even a redirect on 'Astra Planeta', though, needs to die quick and quiet. Bad neo-Latin is like fingernails on the blackboard of my soul. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:27, 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. Consensus emerged that the rivalry is sufficiently described as such in the sources provided by Frank Anchor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry[edit]

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

Having frequent divisional matchups does not make this a notable rivalry Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's maybe a paragraph of content here that's useful and that can be mentioned on the team articles. The rest of the content can be found on multiple articles. This is mostly FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with several sources independent of either team that describe the teams as rivals and have small levels of detail of a rivalry that is more than a simple routine mention. Sydney Morning Herald LA Times Christian Post KPNX. Frank Anchor 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are describing instances of conflicts between players on the teams and labelling them as a rivalry. As I discussed in another deletion discussion, though, sports journalism such as this has a promotional goal. It is explicitly trying to ramp up interest in the games between the teams. We retain the ability to decide the best way to cover important events in a team's history. I do not feel that Wikipedia is best served with independent rivalry articles to cover every pair of competing teams that have had instances of conflicts between their players. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources pass GNG because they are significant (i.e. describe the teams as "rivals" beyond more than simple routine mentions), reliable (coming from notable media outlets), and independent (not directly affiliated with MLB or either team). GNG does not have any stipulation that sports journalism which allegedly has a promotional goal and explicitly [tries] to ramp up interest in the games between the teams should be excluded. Further, the above sources describe history of this series as a rivalry as a whole, rather than focusing on a single moment or brief series of moments. Frank Anchor 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sports journalism articles are non-promotional, while others are promotional, either in whole or in part. They have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I originally was expecting to vote delete, but there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV as provided by Frank_Anchor. If the decision is against keeping, I'd suggest a redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Los Angeles Dodgers, as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point. The Diamondbacks-Dodgers rivalry has garnered significant coverage, with reliable sources to make neutral claims. And while I may be a D-Backs fan, I have made notable contributions to articles like these following the 2023 postseason which are written from an unbiased and neutral point of view. I do also like the compromise you suggested: if the article is deleted, it should at least have a redirect to the MLB Rivalries page about D-Backs VS Dodgers. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank Anchor's sources and also some additional sources I found here: 12News, ESPN, and Chicago Tribune. Conyo14 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 12News source is the same as the KPNX source. I don't have access to the Chicago Tribune article. The ESPN article is a game account from 2019 where there was a disagreement between players and the benches cleared, and the article also refers to the pool incident from six years before that. I feel the use of the term "rivalry" is in the general sense of "tempers were raised by player conduct", and is more promotional than analytical of an inter-franchise rivalry. The press likes to expand the concept of rivalry to cover any case where there is a physical encounter between players, as it attracts readers. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked the Chicago Tribune link and it worked fine for me. Maybe disable JavaScript. Also, I did not realize the 12News and KPNX articles were the same. Finally, the ESPN article... perhaps you're right, but you cannot deny that media always builds up these kind of incidents. Then along with, player and coach spouts, the two teams can become rivals along with fans fueling further hatred. This article is also not super recent compared to the 2023 editions I'm getting hit with. I'll continue to search though. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another: OC Register. I will admit that rivalry articles should have some scrutiny surrounding their beginnings. Especially since it's mostly FANCRUFT. However, if SIGCOV exists, then it's a little hard to deny this. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Tribune article was paywall blocked for me earlier; maybe some free limit cleared just now as I was able to see it. That article is about Kurt Gibson complaining, and the author is arguing that these events are manufactured controversies, not an indication of rivalry. The OC Register article (which I was only able to read for a few seconds before the paywall block came in) covers the pool incident.

Yes, I agreed that the sports press promotes these incidents, as per its promotional goals. Wikipedia editors can decide, though, that there's a better way to cover team histories than giving independent articles covering incidents between every pair of teams, which amounts to providing a degree of promotional coverage for them. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the recent playoff matchup between the two teams and the historical battle of free agency; I feel like the rivalry still has some relevance. Considering the pool incident in 2013, the sweeps for both sides in the NLDS; you still have a decent case to argue that it still presents animosity between the two. PontiacAurora (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just meeting each other in the playoffs a few times does not make a historical rivalry. You could make articles like that about every playoff or divisional opponent, doesn't mean you should. Spanneraol (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the 2013 pool incident is a notable contribution to the stiff contention between the teams. Granted, the rivalry may not be overly historical considering the D-Backs are still one of the newest expansion teams (debuting in 1998), but the fact there are often split crowds at Chase Field when D-Backs play the Dodgers at home goes to show how high the stakes are when they face each other. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it just shows that a lot of Dodgers fans live in the Phoenix area. Spanneraol (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Dodgers–Diamondbacks rivalry: Pretty one sided rivalry, it seems more like the Diamondbacks wishful thinking, but Frank Anchor and Conyo14 refs above show this meets GNG per WP:NRIVALRY. I also found [5], [6], [7], so I think this makes the article well past WP:THREE. The reason for the move is obvious. // Timothy :: talk 03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalry article names have to be alphabetical. I think it's a MOS:TITLE thing, but don't quote me on it. Conyo14 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a team from Los Angeles, then the LA team is always first ;) // Timothy :: talk 03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Missed Call (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Nothing found in a BEFORE, other language pages yield no useful citations. Tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One_Missed_Call_(2003_film)#Sequels_and_remake, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Missed Call (2003 film) or keep if someone simply has the time to find sources that clearly establish notability, which should not be too difficult. This was a nationally-televised program with approximately a 9% rating share, indicating almost certain notability under WP:NTVNATL. I am not sure what kind of WP:BEFORE was done in Japanese here, if any at all, but this is part of an ongoing trend of this editor listing nationally-televised Japanese series for deletion. There doesn't appear to be any effort here to change course despite the fact that these articles are not being deleted, and I find I am unable to keep up with the repeated nominations even though the deletion requests are not going through (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasen (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love of My Life (Japanese TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko). Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or !merge if that's the decision, I'm ok with it going that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless we can find Japanese language sources, I can only find items about movie online. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dekimasu was right - there was a review out there. Notable per a British magazine review cited in the Spanish Wikipedia article. (The German, Japanese and Chinese articles were inadequately referenced). I have added it to the reference section.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:00, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesly Moncayo Fajardo[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBAD. Timothytyy (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Colombia. Timothytyy (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any suggestion of meeting WP:NBAD. I couldn't find any decent coverage at all so WP:GNG looks to be failed. BWF has no professional matches registered at all, which is hugely damning, let's be honest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:54, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Valero[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBAD. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Colombia. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NBAD and the only decent source that I can find is Semilleros Deportivos, which is not enough for WP:GNG on its own. I note that BWF says that she played 8 matches in her professional career and lost every single one. I'm not seeing any reason to consider this person to be a notable sportsperson under the new higher standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless we can find more extensive sourcing, this is all I bring up [8], trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mert Tunço[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Turkey. Timothytyy (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Tripet[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Switzerland. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage in .ch sources is simply match reports, I can't find anything substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Ramazan Bay[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Turkey. Timothytyy (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalia, Togo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO, no evidence of population nor existence. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing WP:NGEO. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Earth: there is nothing there - no village, no road, no house. Clearly an erroneous entry in the gazetteer used as a reference.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. (Please ping me if any reliablle sources are identified.) 20:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anti-German sentiment. Merge may be selective. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Germans[edit]

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

To be frank, this might be the single worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. The bulk of it was written over 15 years ago and hasn't changed much since. It is a mess of unsourced assertions, POV and synthesis. No effort has been made to actually improve this article; stuff has only been cut out or tagged, and the talk page has been inactive since 2010. The subject matter is also covered much better, in a more well-researched and neutral manner on the article about anti-German sentiment. I cannot see any reason not to delete this article. Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anti-German sentiment as per suggestion above. Cortador (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anti-German sentiment; there isn't much substance here to merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or probably better to redirect directly, to the "Anti-German sentiment" article. Article doesn't seem to have much worth keeping to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anti-German sentiment per above discussion. We don't need 2 articles on the same topic and this is the weaker of the 2.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anti-German sentiment, keeping whatever is worthwile.--Srleffler (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anti-German sentiment, rather than merely redirect. That article is a much more substantial one on much the same subject, but this one has a little additional material. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 14 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 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Marri[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in Arabic, no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The only sources that I can find are about a Saudi youth footballer with the same name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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 no consensus‎. Two relists and, as per Stifle's last, there is no consensus for any action here - either relating to the article being deleted or indeed the article being reframed as about the event. Further discussion about the latter should take place on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Abdallah[edit]

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

Seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The only details of his life beyond the event that killed him are from an obituary. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Journalism, Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Obviously this is very much not a BLP; I meant to cite WP:BIO1E, whose rules are essentially the same. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BIO1E states that "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Given that there is no article about the killing of Issam Abdallah, this policy does not seem like grounds for deletion to me. Since Abdallah was an accomplished journalist who provided breaking or exclusive coverage of other significant events, it seems more appropriate to write an article about his life as a whole, rather than the event which led to his death. An article about him also fits better within several category pages such as Category:People killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Category:Deaths by Israeli airstrikes. I do think that other sources should be added to the article highlighting his other journalistic work - specifically, the Reuters articles about the 2020 Beirut Explosion and the surrender of ISIS fighters which he provided notable photojournalistic coverage of. Unbandito (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is very much a notable topic here, whether or not the page is more about the man or more about the event. WP:BLP1E notes that a single event should not alone support a biography "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." - but here this is evidently not the case: this is a high profile and significant shelling of a journalist team. Reporters Without Borders would not be investigating it if it were not. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 31 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!} 22:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: @Unbandito: and @Iskandar323: I still don't see why this individual needs his own article. The event is certainly notable, but it killed others as well, and that even if it had only affected him, the article would still be best focused and named for an event, not styled as a biography. Could we perhaps discuss moving instead? If there is any support for this idea, I am willing to clean up the article to be better suited to whatever title it is moved to. Anonymous 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was the only journalist killed in the incident, while six other journalists were injured. I agree that a page for the event could exist, but I am not convinced that adapting this biography is the best way of creating such a page - not least since there is now an extraordinary amount of coverage out there about Abdullah, and it warrants a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why adapting this biography wouldn't be the best way to go about such an endeavor. No matter how much coverage Abdullah gets, it is still primarily about the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, not about his life, which is discussed in one obituary. Anonymous 14:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually done a WP:BEFORE for pre-2023 coverage? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I performed a few more searches just now since you brought it up. I have consistently failed to find anything published before this month about Abdallah. I don't want this article to be deleted, but I do want Wikipedia's standards of notability to be upheld. Anonymous 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've established that the event of Abdallah's death was notable. He is also credited for his photography in Reuters articles from the 2020 Beirut Port Blast and the 2019 surrender of ISIS fighters at Deir-Ezzor, as well as other articles. [9] [10] [11] [12]

If his previous work as a photojournalist is not notable, this is not a sufficient argument for deletion. The article should, at most, be renamed something like "Killing of Issam Abdallah". If it were, it could still be linked under relevant categories such as Category:People killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Category:Deaths by Israeli airstrikes by keeping the links in those articles as they are. Unbandito (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I admit that I was mistaken in nominating this for deletion. I think that moving is indeed the best course of action. However, User:Iskandar323 has opposed this and the discussion has now shifted more into a move discussion. I am ready for this to be closed, but could I at least get your view on moving? I would be more than willing to clean up the article to better suit whatever new title it is moved to. The links you provided (and I am aware you did not state this and I am not putting words in your mouth) are still insufficient to establish notability for his life per WP:JOURNALIST, as they do not qualify as secondary coverage. Anonymous 02:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% opposed to renaming it as something like "Killing of Issam Abdallah", but I'm not a huge fan of such titles either. All in all, that's best left to a naming discussion. But I still think the real solution here is to create a page on the shelling of the whole journalist team on the border, which has now been the subject of considerable external investigation. And these probes aren't just about Abdullah or his killing, but the entire incident. Incidentally, if you want to wrap this up quick and move onto an RM then you can always withdraw this nomination given that there has been no support for it thus far. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by a banned editor (User:Friedjof) and has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy tag was removed because I overlooked Iskandar's nontrivial expansion. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails BIO1E as a biography, fails NEVENT, NOTNEWS, LASTING as an event. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 08:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per BIO1E as TimothyBlue points out. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move the page to "Killing of Issam Abdallah." RisingTzar (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I agree with TimothyBlue & Researcher in that this does not qualify as a biography. It is more suitable as an article solely on the killing, similar to what was done with Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. RisingTzar (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Killing of Issam Abdallah or 2023 Israeli strike on reporters or some such title. If anybody actually reads WP:BIO1E they will see it is not a valid deletion rationale, and that what it calls for is covering the notable event instead of creating a biography (The general rule is to cover the event, not the person). Every BIO1E delete argument is a misrepresentation of policy and should be ignored. This is widely covered and meets GNG in spades. Among the sources showing in depth, sustained coverage are Oct 29: RSF initial report: Reuters journalist was killed in Lebanon in 'targeted' strike, Oct 14: Reuters journalist killed in Lebanon in missile fire from direction of Israel, Oct 13: Israeli attack in southern Lebanon kills journalist, wounds several others, Oct 13: Journalists Killed and Maimed in Israel-Lebanon Border Strike, Nov 6: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war, Nov 6: A deadly month for a press at war. Oct 16: UNESCO Director-General deplores death of journalist Issam Abdallah in Lebanon Oct 13: A Reuters cameraman is killed and six other journalists are injured near Lebanon’s southern border.. This has received sustained coverage since it occured, and it will continue to do so as Reporters Without Borders has launched an investigation and will be presenting findings in the future, which will lead to more coverage. nableezy - 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown lasting coverage up until today. Making that, while an actual deletion rationale, one that is inapplicable, and can only be used if one refuses to look at the sources showing lasting coverage. Why are you refusing to look at the sources showing lasting coverage? WP:NOTNEWS is about routine coverage, are you under the impression that, according to Reporters Without Borders, a professional army targeting a group of reporters is a routine event? nableezy - 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is extremely clear, and it's pretty obvious that if this content were at Killing of Issam Abdallah or 2023 Israeli strike on reporters there would be no discussion here (the nominator has all but admitted the same, and that they didn't really want deletion, just a move to a different title - one less biographically oriented). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more from the last 18 hours, BBC on another Israeli strike killing a journalist includes on Abdallah
In Lebanon, prominent Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah was killed when covering Israeli rockets fired over the Israel-Lebanon border on 13 October. He was part of a group of journalists near the border town of Alma al-Shaab in southern Lebanon when he was hit by a rocket. Six other journalists were also injured in the strike.
Shortly before Abdallah was killed, he posted on Instagram a picture of himself wearing a helmet and a flak jacket with the word "press" written on it.
Six other journalists, including from Reuters, Al Jazeera and Agency France-Presse, were wounded. One of them, Reuters video journalist Maher Nazeh, said the teams "were filming missile fire coming from the direction of Israel when one struck Abdallah as he was sitting on a low stone wall near the rest of the group", according to a report published by the news agency.
IDF spokesman Richard Hecht said the army was "deeply regretful for the incident" and was "actively investigating it" without saying that Israeli military was behind it.
The claim that this does not have sustained, in depth coverage is quite simply not true, and if somebody repeats that false claim after having the evidence presented to them then their !vote should be given exactly 0 weight here. We can either argue based on substantiated facts or we can make things up to achieve whatever result we want, such as, as a totally random example, suppressing material on Israeli strikes on journalists. I will choose the former option, and I welcome discussion with anybody else that does so. nableezy - 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with fellow Wikipedians' assessment of the article as a BIO1E. EytanMelech (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BIO1E is not a deletion rationale. nableezy - 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and anybody can read WP:BIO1E where it says When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Nowhere does it call for removal of material about an event because the initial article is titled as a biography. That is not debatable, and I dont understand why people are so easily misrepresenting policies that anybody can click and read themselves. nableezy - 14:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1E does not give a pass on satisfying notability criteria because the subject was involved in an event. It does not say there should be a stand alone article about the event if the subject fails BIO.

It states, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" and when this is evaluated as an EVENT instead of a BIO (which fails 1E) it fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING.

No objection to a consensus redirect // Timothy :: talk 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown lasting coverage from the time of the event until now. You have simply proclaimed it fails without any evidence and while ignoring the evidence that refutes your position. You have also claimed a policy that says news coverage of routine events applies to a non routine event that has sustained in depth coverage. I leave it to a closer to evaluate the strength of those arguments. nableezy - 11:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E is a weak argument to me when Reuters publishes an extensive obituary. He may have been a Reuters employee, but news orgs don't routinely publish obituaries for non-notable employees; this, combined with the other coverage, is more than enough for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth relisting to tease out whether there is a consensus in favour of making it an article about the event rather than the person. If I closed now it would be as no-consensus with no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep current title. When the body of article extensively covers his killing and the aftermath/investigation, then it can be renamed or a spinoff article. But right now, this is a short article on a notable journalist who certainly is topic of increased interest due to his killing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TimothyBlue. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 15:55, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Abubakar [edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Being assistant comptroller of Nigerian custom doesn't signify notability. Only the comptroller of Nigerian Custom is notable.He has achieve nothing in politics because he hasn't win positions he contested. Nearly all references used doesn't have significant coverage they are just a mere mentioned but nothing to see perfect significant coverage from an independent secondary reliable source and some are press release.Wazaja (talk) 11:58, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed some malformatted syntax in the nomination. No opinion or comment on the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bashir Abubakar is a Nigerian public figure a Nigerian custom officer who rejected millions of Naira who received National Award.from president of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria Muhammad Buhari he Contested for Governor in Kaduna state. keep the article Pape2023 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. I just added 6 refs including two BBC News items.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While there are concerns of uncited texts, deletion is not clean-up. I see multiple coverage in independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep

It has independent reliable source.Bashir Abubakar is a public figure he is eligible to be in Wikipedia. Pape2023 (talk) 11:52, 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 merge‎ to Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albertville bid for the 1992 Winter Olympics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There's nothing much on the page which isn't already stated on Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics and I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. It is possible it exists because I don't speak French - however I don't see that we need multiple forks with the same information. As an ATD we could redirect to 1992 Winter Olympics given that much of the information is also repeated there. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics as WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per siroxo. Does not meet NOPAGE criteria as needing more than the Bids article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Egeymi (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Taj04 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express[edit]

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

Rewa - Bhopal Vande Bharat Express page should be deleted as there is no confirmation regarding it is confirmed or not. Secondly, government had already extended Rani Kamlapati (Habibganj) - Indore Vande Bharat Express till Rewa Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express Taj04 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Madhya Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express. It is the best way. In case if the government starts a train on the same route, redirect can be removed.1.39.114.158 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if possible so redirect it permanently till gorvernment introduce. earlier same thing before you one person also did this change but again this page was made. So request to redirect the page if possible. Taj04 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above: feasible search term. There is nothing official about the future of this service. But there are chances that this will be introduced in near future. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So request to close this delete discussion and Redirect this link till further government notice. ~~ Taj04 (talk) 01:48, 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!} 05:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BestPrice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company that does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Vietnam. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not finding any SIRS sources in English language. —siro χ o 09:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, Cambodia, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company, created on a new account's 11th edit. Distinguishing this from similarly named companies in Greece (which was the subject of the previous AfD), India, etc. BestPrice Travel is clearly a company going about its business in the Vietnam-area travel market, and gaining sector top-10 awards, etc., which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The best of the references are brief items placing this firm in the context of competition with international online travel agents, and quoting the company's directors, but I don't see sufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 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 redirect‎ to Barra da Tijuca. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CasaShopping[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. unreferenced since the article's creation since 2009. ltbdl (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Brazil. ltbdl (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barra da Tijuca which has a captioned photo as an ATD —siro χ o 09:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and no coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 15 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) Let'srun (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karthika Muralidharan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Insufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Mostly interviews and passing mentions in run-of-the-mill news. No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 lead roles in 2 notable films, and that is sourced, so that she passes WP:NACTOR, the guideline stating, "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NACTOR. Both the listed films have multiple reviews in WP:ICTFSOURCES, and the subject is mentioned by name in many of them. —siro χ o 09:39, 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. If a article move is called for, you all can take it from here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stomopteryx splendens[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES as it doesn't have a valid name. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LepIndex lists it as a valid name, but that is indeed the only source I can find - not present in any other databases. Bit odd. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx is here. Choess (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite seeing how this states a transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx, other than noting "Anacampsis being often wrongly applied to (the genus))"? However, to muddy things a bit more, Anacampsis splendens is apparently considered a synonym of Oxyperyx splendes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it cites Staudinger's original publication of Anacampsis splendens in 1881? It's not clear to me that anyone has actually made the combination in Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SPECIES specifies that an article on a species with a valid name is kept, but that doesn't imply that a species without a valid name must have its page deleted. And there seems to be some ambiguity about the name anyway, so let's not rush to delete. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there is not enough material to establish the existence of this species as clearly defined. This volume of Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae mentions "? Stomopteryx splendens" (page 125) but that is the only explicit mention of the species by name. On page 127, there is a discussion about how the above mentioned Anacampsis splendens was a misidentified species of Stomopteryx, but the species was not determined from that sample. Doesn't seem like this is enough to save the article as a passing references. Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it worth starting a debate/RfC somewhere on what we do with dubious species? We need to think about why we give species automatic notability. If we have nothing to say about a species, except that someone described it, then the only real justifications for having an article are either (1) to record its mere existence for those who need to know if a species exists or not; or (2) to provide a foundation for further information when it appears. If we're keeping based on (1) then we should also keep articles on species that were described but are not currently deemed valid, or that got fused into other species, because our readers have a valid need to know the species don't exist, and why. If we're keeping based on (2) then we should delete articles on species that don't exist and that didn't generate enough historical information to create an article, because there will never be anything further to say about them. The result of the current AfD debate depends on this general question. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Elemimele - please advice how i can start a RfC on this topic. Hongsy (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hongsy:, I've started one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Request_for_comment,_deletion_of_dubious_species. I hope I've done it correctly, it's the first time I've tried this! The instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Elemimele (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elmidae and Choess: there are some other combinations in play, with poor presence on the internet. One is Aproaerema splendens, found on a wiki (with scans of Staudinger's description of Anacampsis splendens); I'm not sure where this combination was actually published. The other is Xystophora splendens with this as the only Google result (this is the same publication Kazamzam has linked above, but hosted on a different site), which says "The case is now as follows : the species splendens Stgr., is based on a female specimen (1. c. 90—91), and is a Xystophora Hein., taxon. The first female (1. c. 325) is a Stomopteryx s. 1. not validly described, unnamed. It needs further material, and, among it, male specimens, to unreservedly identify and describe it." On the following page, the combination Xystophora splendens is made. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Syncopacma splendens of this relatively recent paper may refer to this species, but I'm not sure where, if anywhere, that combination was made. Choess (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I finally had a chance to sit down and write the taxonomy section. It appears this article should properly be at Xystophora splendens, but between Staudinger's original description and Gozmány's commentary, there's enough for an article, and there is a species here with a properly published name. (I haven't translated Staudinger's description yet but Gozmány calls it "thorough".) I have not yet seen evidence of published combinations in Aproaerema or Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given Choess' work in laying out the taxonomic history, it appears that there is a valid description here with a rather mixed history. Keep and move as required; I'll take the words of the more taxonomically experienced wrt the target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently valid species. AryKun (talk) 17:35, 13 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H. Mallawathanthre[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, specifically, WP:NCRICKET. Hongsy (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no newspaper articles I can find about this person, nor any reliable cricket database. Hongsy (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd only be copying and pasting what I've written over at WT:CRIC. If anyone feels like putting together some more team-by-team lists for Indian and Sri Lankan teams, please feel free. Bobo . 04:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a suitable redirect - and I don't have time to create one - this will need to be a delete I'm afraid. We simply don't know enough about the person to justify an article as far as I can see. If a list is created please contact me and I'll change this opinion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail. Normally I'd suggest a redirect per WP:ATD, but as BST states, a suitable list for the team he played for does not exist currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to create a List of Nondescripts Cricket Club players. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cricketers with one known appearance very rarely generate sufficient coverage to enable us to write an article rather than a database entry in prose form. So obscure that there would be zero value in a redirect even if a suitable target existed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahalpitiya[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werakonkanda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable source per nom EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landajulana[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources per nom EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:00, 14 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 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan Saadati[edit]

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

Fails notability, This guy is absolutely non-notable just won a continental junior medal. the same thing as other pages created like this, writing a very short article and then throwing lots of almost non-related refs to make it look notable. looks more like a "job" than a genuine edit. Sports2021 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sports2021 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 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!} 01:13, 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 redirect‎ to Hindi Belt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow belt[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded in 2020 by LearnIndology (no-pinged; TBANned and inactive) for reason It is just a social media slang and not enough scholarly sources are available for this term. Instead BLAR'd to Indo-Gangetic Plain by Capankajsmilyo. Restored by आज़ादी, BLAR'd again by LearnIndology because has nothing except a dictionary source; restore redirect, and finally brought to RfD, where I found consensus to restore and send to AfD. A number of RfD voters favored redirecting to BIMARU states, which this AfD should consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-trivial to consider, but fairly obvious. Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) documents this as a genuine journalistic shorthand. But it is long past the time that we should have formally adopted rules against slang article titles, given how inevitably bad they have always turned out to be over the years. Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) indicates that "cow belt" is pejorative slang, and talks of a Hindi belt. That latter turns up in things like Harrison 2015, p. 305 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarrison2015 (help), which documents K. Kelappan's view of the Hindi belt. Given that sources such as West 2010, p. 281 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWest2010 (help) (the author being an anthropology professor) and many others use the names synonymously, and given that Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) (the author being a journalist) points out that "cow belt" is pejorative for Hindi belt, the fact that this should be a redirect, and the redirect target, seem plainly indicated by how subject experts have documented this. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reddy, Kovuuri G. (2015). Handbook of Journalism and Media: India, Bharat, Hindustan. Vikas Publishing House. ISBN 9789325982383.
- Harrison, Selig S. (2015). India: The Most Dangerous Decades. Princeton Legacy Library. Vol. 2233. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400877805.
- West, Barbara A. (2010). "Hindi". Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438119137. so-called Hindi belt or cow belt
Keep this is notable enough. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIMARU states per the rationales shared at the RfD. The subject does not appear to independently pass GNG, with only passing mentions in sources and no focused discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Uncle G you say it's fairly obvious but it's not despite your admirable investigation. I gather you want to turn this page into a Redirect but to what redirect target? The one proposed in the nominator's statement or to the previous redirect target? Or another one entirely?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this not just an alternative name for the Hindi Belt? Is there something I'm missing here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The term seems to be used interchangeably in some contexts, but is typically used to refer to a particular region that is a subset of the Hindi belt. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, although I thought that the quotation and the fact that I said that they were synonyms made it obvious, per Reddy 2015, p. 109 and West 2010, p. 281 the "cow belt" is the Hindi belt, just a pejorative name for it. Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. Reddy 2015, p. 109 draws a distinction between the Hindi belt a.k.a. Hindi heartland, including Delhi and Chhattisgarh, and the BIMARU states, not including those. But that's another discussion, about two other pages. Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindi Belt and/or selectively merge there. If this is simply a slang term for a region referred to by a more common name, it might be better to mention it within the article with broader scope that provides more context rather than forking it out into its own article. Sources are describing the two as alternative names for one another, and I'm not really seeing the nominated article as being about the (oft-)pejorative title, so I think we've essentially got duplicate article subjects at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Liz's relisting comment below, I'm OK with BIMARU states, though I do think Hindi Belt is more precise. I'd be fine hashing out this nuance at RfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please not send this back to RfD, this AfD was only opened because of an RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different redirect target articles mentioned in this discussion. If this closes as Redirect, we need to coalesce opinion on one article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindi belt: Since this is simply a (junior and pejorative) synonym for the existing article Hindi belt, we should simply redirect to avoid a content fork. I agree with the opinion above that we should be extremely circumspect about adopting a pejorative title as an article name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 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!} 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric L. Levinson[edit]

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

Seems like his most notable judicial office was the North Carolina Superior Court, which doesn't seem like a notable enough office to warrant a Wikipedia page. The dearth of articles cited on this page makes me think he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Also, this article is written like a biography or press release. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sat on the N.C. Court of Appeals and therefore meets WP:NPOL Jahaza (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USCJN (an unofficial guidance essay, for clarity) Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
State court of appeals judges (that is, the level above the trial court and below the state's highest court) are not inherently notable based on being on a state court of appeals, as WP:USCJN says, but it's not that he sat on the court of appeals per se, but that in NC, the court of appeals is a state-wide elected office. By contrast, in NY, the judges at the equivalent level, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division are appointed from the judges elected locally to the NY trial court of general jurisdiction and do not hold a state-wide office. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that NPOL doesnt make anybody inherently notable, it just states that these are presumed notable and that we can expect to find WP:SIGCOV on these subjects. However, as I point out below, I could not find any SIGCOV in WP:RS about this person. Therefore we cannot write a reliable article about this person. --hroest 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on "presumed notability" - this implies that given particular NPOL offices (parliamentarian etc), we assume SIGCOV exists. Unlike most other discussions of notability, where the burden for evidence of sourcing lies with those who would keep, with NPOL, presumed notability implies that the burden lies with those who seek to delete to indicate why the persumption should not apply. So, for example, it would be reasonable to argue that presumed notability should not apply to a 14th Century member of the English parliament, because all that we ever find about that person is a name and death date. That said, the other crucial aspect is whether the office itself satisfies NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ he seems to fail WP:GNG. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the North Carolina Court of Appeals is even a clear pass of NPOL of state/province–wide office since it seems to make that cut just barely as an intermediate appellate court that is subordinate to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Also even passing NPOL#1 doesnt make a subject inherently notable, only presumed to be notable, so they still have to pass WP:GNG and there should be WP:RS about them. But in this case I could really not find much coverage about the subject himself, all articles were trivial mentions except for one [13] but even this is a borderline case and clearly not in-depth coverage of him (a one paragraph bio copied from somewhere and a quote). However, one article that has non-trivial coverage is not enough. In conclusion, I am not sure that WP:NPOL#1 applies here and even if it does the subject still has to pass WP:GNG which he does not. --hroest 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC) -- change the vote to keep based on articles found below. --hroest 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that all articles are trivial mentions except that one. This Charlotte Observer article is entirely about his electoral race[14], there's a NY Times article[15] with brief followup[16], Goldsboro News-Argus on 2014 campaign[17], an article from 2007 about his resignation from the Court of Appeals for the job in Iraq[18], Greenville, NC newspaper article[19], a different local paper[20], newspaper endorsement[21], magazine article on spending in the 2014 race[22], Gaston Gazette[23], radio station report on 2014 election[24], The Appalachian[25] Jahaza (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these are all non-trivial mentions but for some reason they did not show up in my Google / Google News search. Google has been removing news from Canadian searches recently, but that should not affect the NYT.--hroest 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is routine electoral coverage. Remember that WP:1E says you can't be considered notable for running in one high-profile race. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if he lost and never held public office. However, he did win public office in 2002 in an state-wide election and there is an in-depth article about him about taking the job in Irak [26] so this is more than just 1E. --hroest 16:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com has additional newspaper articles from when he was elected to the circuit court and from when he was elected to the N.C. Court of Appeals. Jahaza (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NPOL by winning a statewide election to hold a seat on an appellate court. State historical societies and the state bar association publications should be checked for sourcing (when I've written articles on state appellate judges they have the best sourcing). In my experience, there is almost always enough sourcing to write a biography on someone who won a statewide election. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not quite convinced this is an NPOL pass, but based on sources identifed by Jaazah passes BASIC/GNG; clearly some problems with WP:PEACOCK, but AfD is not cleanup. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 15 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#Citrus Series: Miami Marlins vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These two teams are not really rivals, as evidenced by the lack of sourcing present. Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless some new flood of sourcing appears and demonstrates this game series to be encyclopedically notable as "a thing". There are lots of mentions [27] but I'm not so sure about in-depth coverage. Whether or not it's a "true rivalry" is probably not relevant to the question, but we have a lot of articles on alleged "sport[s] rivalries" in a more general sense (not about a named series of games per se) that are questionably enyclopedic as topics in and of themselves (probably better treated as sections at team articles) and bear closer examination. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Citrus Series: Miami Marlins vs. Tampa Bay Rays per nom. The series does not pass GNG (in terms of establishing a notable rivalry) but this could be a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 23:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its section on the MLB rivalries page as suggested by Frank Anchor. Hatman31 (talk) 17:02, 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.

[1] "BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL: BARA MARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL". BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL. 2010-12-08. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

[2] "BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL: BARA MARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL". BARAMARICHA D.H. HIGH SCHOOL. 2010-12-08. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

[1]

[1]