Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 30	October 02 >

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Odoh[edit]

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

Article about a politician and professor that fails both WP:NPOL and WP:NACADEMIC. Being a nominee for the office of Governor does not give the subject automatic notability. Parts of the article reads like a resume. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject passes notability WP:NPOL, He not only was a gubernatorial nominee but was one of the three significant ones in the state, He before that has been in political limelight in the state as having contested for the Senate, served as Secretary of State and contested twice for Governor. The subject has attained a significant coverage

QeenAnn (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Candidates who fail to be elected do not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Those who are current nominees are not inherently notable, and an article on them for such a presumed reason may be considered to be an election leaflet, thus WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject has occupied a notable political office of Secretary to the State Government. An equivalent of a US Secretary of State Government . This does not pass WP:NPOL?
QeenAnn (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote. One editor one !vote 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that note about striking a !vote has now been orphaned. It is in the history, however. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QeenAnn You're a little off. He didn't hold the equivalent of US Secretary of State, he held the equivalent of a state government version like Oklahoma Secretary of State. Usually, a state-wide appointed office is evidence of notability, but not quite the presumption of notability WP:NPOL gives for state-wide elected office. However, an appointed state-wide official with coverage for other activities may meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say US Secretary of State, I said US Secretary of state government like Texas Secretary of State. They're quite different and yet similar offices on different levels of government. Even at that the candidate in question has coverage for other electoral activities as well before and after occupying the office QeenAnn (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QeenAnn No, you did not. What you said was The subject has occupied a notable political office of Secretary to the State Government., which is defined as a high-ranking appointed executive branch official in the article Secretary to the State Government.

Appointed officials are rarely, if ever, notable in a Wikipedia sense. This one is not one that that rare breed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep: The subject has occupied a notable political office and sources appear to meet GNG. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (BST)
Keep: Appears to meet notability, has held political office and it feels like removal might be US-centric. BHC (talk) 01:17, 2 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!} 22:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly meet criterion 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. No WP:IS WP:RS show WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to meet GNG and NBIO, the NPOL is without merit as Timtrent showed, and ACADEMIC point is completely unsuported. Keep voters provide no sources. BEFORE showed nothing. BLP clearly states, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. // Timothy :: talk 17:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies NPOL; held a cabinet level position in a state government of a federal system. Comments above with regard to "appointments" are not correct - other than the President, the entire US executive is apppointed - no one argues anywhere that the *appointed* members of US cabinets at federal or state level are not notable under NPOL, Nigeria is no different. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cough..."other than the President" and Vice-President! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 220[edit]

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

WP:NOTDB issue, which also probably fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding any references to this. ASCII code subset, could perhaps merge there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any WP:GNG rationale for this article. No prominent mentions or analysis as an object or as a set. I feel that WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE are the best policy reasons (other than lack of independent notability) for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo International School Patiala[edit]

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

Only a directory listing provided as a source. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. LibStar (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate notability of any kind.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Sole ref to a database, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, just more database records and routine mill mentions. // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship Rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, without more information this seems like a solid delete. BHC (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no content, plus WP:BRANCH. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awash Rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as no information outside of name and location. GraziePrego (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Paskov[edit]

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

No significant sources for this Bulgarian chemist. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside of the galantamine invention he was heading for 20 years the leading Bulgarian university department of pharmacology and more or less created experimental pharmacology as a separate field in Bulgaria - certainly above the limit of WP:NACADEMIC. There are some sources in the Bulgarian version, it's not so hard to find more. --Nk (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the Bulgarian Wikipedia, he has an entry in Encyclopedia Bulgaria vol. 5. Jfire (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974[edit]

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

The article is not only highly unsourced and has been for at least five years from the maintenance template, it is clearly dogged with nationalism and any attempts to change either get reverted or nobody cares enough to make said changes. Additionally, since this is about 1974 in Cyprus, I believe there are a reasonable amount of articles that cover this subject including but not limited to "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus", "Cyprus dispute", "Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus" all of which are in comparison to this, fairly sourced-neutral. SirBlueWhite (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Cyprus. SirBlueWhite (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 'Timeline of' articles are actually a special case of 'List of' articles, and they suffer from the same weaknesses in that they are easily filled up with entries that in themself may be relevant for the theme, but taken together create an imbalance that violates WP:NPOV. Even if individual entries are sourced, the relative importance of the different entries is difficult to assess. This is, of course, also a problem in an ordinary article, but much more so in list articles, and it is especially critical in contentious topic areas. Other articles cover this topic far much better. --T*U (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions on this AFD discussion before taking action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no advocates for Deletion so this is closing as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Nepal[edit]

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

Information about time in Nepal is more broadly covered in Nepal Standard Time. Time zone history is also covered in that article, whereas Time in Nepal does not. If we were to expand the article, it could duplicate the information stated in the article Nepal Standard Time. Eye snore 13:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obviously encyclopedic topic, and should never have been brought to AFD. I don't know what more there is to say about Nepal Standard Time except that it is +5:45 and the date it was adopted. On the other hand, Time in Nepal has the scope to explore the whole history of time and timekeeping in Nepal. If anything, Nepal Standard Time ought to be covered in a section of Time in Nepal and could be redirected there. Since we have nothing in Time in Nepal currently, and I am not volunteering to work on these articles just now, I would support redirecting Time in Nepal to Nepal Standard Time if we must, but to be clear, for the time being. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Usedtobecool. Could be reasonably redirected to Nepal Standard Time but is definitely a redirect with possibilities and should not be a red link. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:33, 1 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!} 22:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I requested a merge. I made the wrong venue to request merges by mistake, so please speedily close as keep. Eyesnore ^talk💬 23:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Throne[edit]

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

Added what coverage I could find to Altered Genesis, but I'm not even sure that's enough for that article. Aside from possibly passing NBAND#6 (though I haven't actually checked into Tchort or Erlend Caspersen to confirm this), I don't see any criteria being met, and I cannot accept #6 alone for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to nominate the album separately. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and lack of reliable sources. GraziePrego (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blood Red Throne. If you are interested in deleting a template, you need to take it to WP:TFD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Genesis[edit]

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

Added what coverage I could find, though I'm not even certain how reliable it is. If not for that, this article has a Blabbermouth review and nothing else that I'm aware of. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Norway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated the band separately. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Blood Red Throne would be good, but if that’s going to be deleted as well then this page should go with it. GraziePrego (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego given you voted to delete on the other AfD, I'm assuming we can take this as essentially a delete vote rather than a merge vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially yes. GraziePrego (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's time to let this article go.SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into Blood Red Throne and delete {{Blood Red Throne}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator - The Blood Red Throne article was reinstated at 12:23 on October 6, 2023. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Stela Domador-Kuzma[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG. Horrible as it is, was, for the victim and for those who loved them, WP:NOTNEWS applies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, England, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The murder has had important coverage in Spanish:[1][2][3][4][5] but there doesn't seem to have been further repercussions. I tried looking for statements from diplomatic or government officials per WP:SUSTAINED, to no avail. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is based on news reports from when the crime took place and the subsequent court case; both of which could be viewed as primary sources. There needs to be further discussion and analysis of this crime in reliable sources to make it notable per WP:NEVENT — Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting. Does have an international aspect (Britain/Venezuela) the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred) but doesn't seem to have had an impact on, for example, the countries relations. Haven't found reliable sources demonstrating a lasting WP:EFFECT. This from the essay WP:NOTABLENEWS sums up the situation with this article: Notnews articles are nothing more than summaries of an event. Something happens and then everything is successfully resolved and forgotten. Nothing happens in reaction to the event, no one significant reacts, no changes occur and no impact is demonstrated.. Maybe a bit harsh as this murder obviously has a severe impact and is not forgotten by close relatives and friends of the deceased, but it's coverage of the wider context that Wikipedia is concerned with and that's what is lacking here. Rupples (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Simon Shotton[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG. Horrible as it is, was, for the victim and for those who loved them, WP:NOTNEWS applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP1E, NOTNEWS. Fails WP:VICTIM. // Timothy :: talk 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Thomas Roberts[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG. Horrible as it is, was, for the victim and for those who loved them, WP:NOTNEWS applies. The article has been substantially padded out with material about the murderer, and suffered from WP:CITEKILL 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Politely, I disagree that this article fails WP:GNG. The sources are reliable, with significant coverage at the time, and ongoing (at present, this murder has been heard in the House of Commons, discussed by a number of politicians and an inquest remains ongoing, on the matter of how the suspect, who had killed two people previously, was able to enter the UK and kill again). If I can be of more assistance to answer specific questions, please do not hesitate to reply. InilanNahklia (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe we should interpret this as expressing the opinion to keep the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SUSTAINED: this source about an aspect of the subject is from a year and a half after the event:
Toby Wadey (10 August 2023). "Man flagged as terror risk before e-scooter row murder - inquest". BBC.
Folly Mox (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Arguably, sufficient coverage in sources to satisfy WP:GNG and continued coverage, noted above, appears to negate WP:Not News. --Ykraps (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I participate by providing input alongside those who advocate for retaining the article.--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 14:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Berggruen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Notability is not inherited. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows this meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. My searches found nothing I would consider significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Elspea756 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Mississippi#Winners. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beth James[edit]

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

Besides some local coverage for a minor beauty pageant she won, this subject doesn't appear to have any WP:SIGCOV. As such, this article fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Mississippi. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage for Miss Mississippi, nothing beyond that point, or before the event. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A searched turned up only coverage of the pageant and nothing else. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage exists here, here, here, here, here, and here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only minor local coverage and does not meet notability or WP:GNG criteria. Should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Mississippi. The coverage identified mentions her as the winner of the pageant but haven't found much beyond that. Rupples (talk) 18:24, 1 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!} 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Mississippi#Winners as a reasonable alternative to deletion, thus retaining the history if enough coverage is later found to justify a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Mississippi#Winners per above. Could be a BLP1E, but the target is a good AtD. // Timothy :: talk 20:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Star[edit]

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

I found one review from a RS, one sponsored article from a RS, and one two-paragraph post from a RS about its release, but not enough independent sigcov. QuietCicada (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more sources left on the talk page. Not sure if those are enough. Timur9008 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. two of those are just videos. Timur9008 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is also a PC Gamer preview here and some non-sponsored reception from PCGamesN here. It seems to have the bare minimum reception for a standalone page regardless of its vaporware status. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - RPS review, PC Gamer preview, and one of the PCGamesN articles ([6]) seem just enough to pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christopher Rowley. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bazil Broketail[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article about a novel series and separate articles about each of the seven individual novels within it, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for novels.
As always, novels are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them -- but all but two of these are completely unreferenced, one of the two exceptions (Ultimate) is referenced exclusively to directory entries (e.g. GoodReads) that aren't support for notability, and the other exception (Battledragon) is referenced to one acceptable book review in a GNG-worthy publication, which is a start but not in and of itself enough.
And further, all of these are written entirely as in-universe plot and/or character summaries, with absolutely no content about their real-world impact or significance -- but our rules for how to write good articles about novels require the latter.
And even if this can be salvaged with better sourcing than I've been able to locate with the resources I have access to, it would still be unclear that we would need eight articles about it instead of just one omnibus article and a bunch of redirects. Additionally, note that there's also a {{Dragons of the Argonath novels}} navbox crosslinking all of these to each other, which will obviously also have to be deleted if these articles go — but given the slim possibility of salvageability, I don't think it appropriate to initiate TFD on it until there's a clearer sense of which direction the AFD discussion is travelling in. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect them all to the author, which already covers the series in adequate detail. The author article at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does mention this series, both in prose and with a listing, but I was not successful in finding further reviews either. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split opinion between Redirection and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not spent time searching for sources for any of these books, so I make no comment about the books' notability. I comment only to say I prefer a redirect over deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all to Christopher Rowley, the author. No indication that the books are individually notable. BD2412 T 16:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive services[edit]

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

I am not entirely sure what this article is. Most of it is an essay (especially #Preemptive vs predictive). There is also a little bit of a WP:DICTDEF (especially in the lead). House Blaster^talk 20:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsalvageable WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of unencyclopedic content. Jfire (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best this is a WP:DICTDEF as nom said, and at worst a hopeless mess of OR describing "pre-emptive" this-and-that. Completely non-notable content that could not possibly be discussed as a cohesive topic by any RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossella Cardone[edit]

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

While there appear to be more sources in Italian than English, I am not convinced that this woman meets NBIO or the GNG. Sources in the article are either her LinkedIn profile or just contain statements she gave to the press (e.g. [7][8]). I was able to find an interview and other trivial mentions (e.g. [9][10]), but not SIGCOV. House Blaster^talk 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Italy. House Blaster^talk 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. Possible paid editing given the author's other contributions, none of which have been helpful. Jfire (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject fails WP:BIO. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not seem to meet relevant notability guidelines, and strongly reads as autobiography or promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalnun Mawia[edit]

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

Having searched 'Lalnunmawia', 'Lal Nun Mawia' and 'Lalnun Mawia', I was unable to find any evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is Sportskeeda, a passing mention only. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tig (Tigrinya language)[edit]

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

No sources establishing notability.
Fully original research.
Created by now blocked account.
Linguistically, tig is not a prefix in Tigrinya. Pathawi (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Africa, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope a comment from the nominator is not inappropriate. This article was created to address a real source of confusion: The similarity between the names of the Tigre (ትግረ Təgrä) & Tigrinya/Tigrigna (ትግርኛ Təgrəñña) languages, & the Tigray Region (ትግራይ Təgray) of Ethiopia, as well as several other terms derived from these. Tigre & Tigrinya are spoken in adjacent regions of the Horn of Africa, & Tigray is one of the areas where Tigrinya is a majority language. It makes sense that people could find this confusing. I do not object to a Wikipedia page which clarifies the use of these historically related terms. I am solely proposing the deletion of this specific page, as it attempts to distinguish between these terms on the basis of a prefix which has no notable (or other) appearance in reliable sources. Notability is the primary criterion that I identify as reason for deletion. Notability always matters, but it particularly matters here because the content is misleading. Linguistically, Tig- is not a prefix, or any other non-arbitrary element in these terms. The common element between these words is the consonantal series ⎷TGR. The idea of the prefix Tig- is original research—or really original supposition. The meaning & origin of the tri-consonantal root ⎷TGR might have notable coverage in reliable sources, & might be a reasonable topic for a page. I mention in the nomination that the creator of the page is banned: This is not an adequate reason to delete the page, but it is the reason that I have initiated this process rather than started with a conversation with the page's creator. Pathawi (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the OP's rationale. There is no source in that article that supports the existence of its topic, and there is no source in the real world out there, either. As a sock concoction without non-cosmetic contributions by other editors, it is actually a clean case of WP:G5 (it's pretty annoying when a PROD for made-up stuff like this is contested, but no further comment on that). –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prod is for uncontroversial deletions. Bad stuff should be deleted through AfD or CSD so that it can't be easily restored or recreated. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to the reasons given by Pathawi and Austronesier. I would also not support the creation of a page TGR, unless there is any notable use of this three-radical sequence covering all possible Tigr... languages in the literature. I don't think there is. LandLing 15:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fully agree with not creating ⎷TGR without notable use in reliable sources. I just wanted to be clear in my initial comment that I was not opposed in theory to other possible pages distinguishing these terms (assuming all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion): That my objections here are specifically to tig. Pathawi (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Oxford#Clubs and societies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Imps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Notability' template recently removed because this improv group is "multi-award winning" (no evidence of this at all) and they have "notable alumni" (these people became known well after they left Oxford University). I notice the article was originally written by someone purporting to be the founder of the Oxford Imps. I can find very little apart from the Oxford Mail article, and Oxford University student media, about the Oxford Imps. They clearly exist, but are not widely enough noticed or written about in journalistic sources to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oxford University#Clubs and societies or keep. They do have some references available online such as https://www.cherwell.org/2017/08/15/the-oxford-imps-at-the-fringe-review-high-energy-and-entertaining/, https://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/feature/18217/the-oxford-imps-women-and-nb-special-improvised-comedy, https://www.proquest.com/docview/327165043/313D57C3D288402BPQ/1, https://www.proquest.com/docview/327120836/313D57C3D288402BPQ/2, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1720854579/313D57C3D288402BPQ/10, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1924176558/313D57C3D288402BPQ/15, https://threeweeksedinburgh.com/article/ed2012-comedy-review-the-oxford-imps-oxford-imps/, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oxford University#Clubs and societies. They do not have national coverage in WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now in Australia too far away to be clear about this one, but I guess merge is the best solution. --Bduke (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is clear. BD2412 T 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chilling[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM. The sources provided aren't enough for GNG. I found next to nothing at Rotten Tomatoes and not what I call a "review" at TV Guide, neither of which were included here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film, also called Gamma 693, was apparently first released in 1989. A micro-review dismisses it as follows: "Utterly worthless film doesn't even provide convincing effects" Another says it is unconvincing etc, yet another short analysis in this book.. There is probably more but the TV Guide micro-review, the book quoted in the page and the rest allow to expand and improve the page, which I am willing to do, and attest a reasonable notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In addition to the review at Rotten Tomatoes, and the ones listed above by Mushy Yank, there is this one [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, unless I am very much mistaken, both this film and Night of the Zombies (1979/1981) were at some point also known as Gamma 693 and The Chilling! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Four reviews available [12], [13], [14] and [15]. This book also contains two pages about the film, on pages 69 and 70. Additionally, there are numerous other sources available, leaving no doubt that it meets the criteria for WP:NFILM. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:30, 2 October 2023 (
Keep per Mushy Yank. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank. - Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is clear. BD2412 T 16:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papunta Ka Pa Lang, Pabalik Na Ako[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM. The citations from Manila Standard are mere mentions. I couldn't find anything significant with AV Club or Rotten Tomatoes, who I would expect to have a review. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If judged insufficiently notable for a standalone page, redirect to Jun Aristorenas with the note quoting Cinema of the Philippines .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There aren't many reviews for old films on Rotten Tomatoes or any other review website. Generally, present-day news websites don't have articles or reviews available for such old films. But, during BEFORE, I came across the possibility of offline sources, so I decided to mark it as reviewed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: What does "I came across the possibility of offline sources" even mean? You don't have sources to point to but you think it's always possible sources might exist in hardcopy somewhere? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman, This source has a full paragraph about the film. Another source provides a paragraph about the film. Additionally, a third source has one paragraph about the film. This film is also known as 'You Are Going to the Place That I Have Just Returned from Alone,' and some sources cover it under this title. The film's original language is Filipino, and there are many sources in Filipino, but I couldn't find much information due to language barriers. After conducting WP:BEFORE, I concluded that this subject is notable enough to warrant an article. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this movie (though I haven't watched it) lololol.

To echo DreamRimmer's comment above, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Rotten Tomatoes or AV Club to assert the notability of Filipino films. Those two websites tend to be US-/English-centric, so under that argument you might as well argue that many other non-US, non-UK, non European, non-English films as non-notable, even if they were directed by a well-known director and cast some notable actors in them. IMDB is at best incomplete, there are many other Filipino titles that have not yet been listed on IMDB.

For most Filipino films made before the 2000s, there's a chance that the references we'd need would be in print, not websites or online sources. (Especially true the older a film is.) DreamRimmer already cited a few which are good sources. There would probably be some mentions in academic journals like the ones published by the UP College of Mass Communications or the likes of Nick Deocampo, Teddy Co, Nick Tiongson and many others; had I have more time, I would love to do this myself. Tabloids and old entertainment magazines (some likely defunct but at the time enjoyed a wide readership) during the era would also likely have some mentions of this movie, especially considering that this was a Viva Films production, it is very unlikely that the press at the time would have ignored this especially considering that Eddie Garcia is on it.

That said...if a keep is deemed insufficient, a redirect would be an acceptable compromise for me. While the director and the actors are notable, I don't think it is regarded as an exceptional film even by Philippine standards. A redirect to either Viva Films, Jun Aristorenas or Eddie Garcia would be fine by me. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 1 contains an entire section which talks about the film. Sources 2 and 3 contain a section which talks about the production and plot of the film. Source 4 contains a section which talks about the updates on the film. The last source contains a brief description of the film being a hit in cinemas. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NFILM. ASTIG 😎🙃 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources show notability and they discuss the film. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFILM per arguments of Astig and DreamRimmer. 4 out of 5 reliable sources are in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Created by a DUCK sock, in addition to other reasons why it should be deleted. I am not going to protect the title, as that would just result in the spammer finding another title; the more reason there is for them to switch to a new title the more difficult it is for us to see new creations, as we can watch previously used titles, but we can't watch every possible new title that they might use. JBW (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC) JBW (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makoons Play School[edit]

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

Previously deleted non notable school. All sources cited do not count for notability Noneate (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Noneate (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In fact, speedy delete as created by blocked/banned user who is now using a SOCK. Would suggest protecting this title and the variations previously used and listed at the [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amansharma111/Archive SPI investigation]. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahleah Mulder[edit]

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

No indication of notability; fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 due to lack of in-depth sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in The West, Rookie Me and Code is enough to satisfy GNG. – Teratix ₵ 07:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article are enough to pass the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. If the page is considered not notable for the time being, I would recommend draftifying. She has just been selected as a top draft and will likely have many more sources discussing her in the future. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cumulus Media Networks#Satellite formats. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nerve (radio network)[edit]

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

No coverage found for this defunct radio format, which doesn't meet WP:GNG as a result. Let'srun (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumulus Media Networks § Satellite formats, where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. Not many nationally-distributed music services get the requisite significant coverage to even approach GNG; there is no separate notability here. (A completely unsourced article that declares that reasons unknown led to the closure of the service doesn't exactly seem like the type of article we would allow today; frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't actually meet any of the standards in place ~10 years ago either.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Shows USA[edit]

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

No notability found for this radio syndicator to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That article was one I wrote many years ago. Whatever notability it might have had at the time is likely no longer applicable. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-496[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources listed are not independent of Casio. A search shows no sources that could contribute to GNG, such as product reviews. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Japan. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent secondary coverage found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator‎. Finally the creating editor has acknowledged their COI at WP:COIN and interested editors may now work unhindered to retrieve a useful article from the strange state it is in today. There is no purpose in prolonging this discussion.There are no other editors expressing the need to delete, and the keeps are conclusive in any case (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim May (chemical engineer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Richard May

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

This article is filled with references of no consequence, WP:BOMBARD, and fails to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:BIO. He is assuredly WP:BLP1E for his centenrary medal, assuming them to be a scarce award, but the rest is fluff, flummery and a vanity piece. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies.

To assist editors with this nomination I have prepared a source analysis table on this permalink to the best of my ability:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Timtrent
Pearce, Suzannah (2005). Who's Who in Australia, 1906-2006, XLII Edition. Crown Content Pty Ltd. p. 1350. ISBN 1740950232.	~ There is significant doubt about the independence of any edition of Who's Who	~ There is significant doubt about the reliability of any edition of Who's Who	? No copy was available to assess	? Unknown
James May". Alumni and Community. The University of Queensland. 8 January 2016.	~ This is a university giving an award to one of their own alumni. It is a useful marketing vehicle for the university	There is much marketing and PR self interest when making some form of an award to an alumnus. While the University itself may be considered reliable, the Alumni element of it is by no means likely to be in this context	Several paragraphs.	✘ No
Field, Graham J. (1988). The Fields of Endeavour, Builders, Butchers and Publicans. G. Field. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-7316-4614-2.	? No copy was available to assess	? No copy was available to assess	? No copy was available to assess	? Unknown
Evans, Mervyn Wyke (1981). The Days of May. Rigby. pp. 302, 303. ISBN 978-0-7270-1548-8.	? No copy was available to assess	? No copy was available to assess	? No copy was available to assess	? Unknown
May, Richard. “Outstanding Contribution Advanced Mineral Research and Technology.” The Age. The Age, August 26, 2023. https://www.theage.com.au/national/outstanding-contribution-advanced-mineral-research-and-technology-20230826-p5dzn2.html.	While The Age is independent and RS, the Obits segment is user generated submissions. This is authored by May's son.	While The Age is independent and RS, the Obits segment is user generated submissions. This is authored by May's son.	Decent article	✘ No
“A Service of Thanksgiving and Celebration for the Life Of.” Accessed June 15, 2023. https://irp.cdn-website.com/6d856cf0/files/uploaded/James%20May%20OOS.pdf	The is an order of service for a funeral/thanksgiving service	The is an order of service for a funeral/thanksgiving service	Well fleshed out order of service	✘ No
Sense, Design. “Australian Prospectors & Miners Hall of Fame	This states it uses "AMIRA International Archives" and AMIRA is where May was CEO for many years	This states it uses "AMIRA International Archives" and AMIRA is where May was CEO for many years	Well rounded piece	✘ No
AusIMM Award recipients 2021". AusIMM.	Profile piece of May among other members of this institute	Profile piece of May among other members of this institute	Well rounded piece<	✘ No
issuu. "AMIRA Sharing the Benefits Newsletter – Issue 38 November 2014," 2014. p. 13. https://issuu.com/imranhussain94/docs/amira_-_sharing_the_benefits_-_issu/1?ff	AMIRA newsletter! May was CEO	AMIRA newsletter! May was CEO	Passing mention in the caption to a photograph om p18	✘ No
"Centenary Medal entry for Mr James Richard MAY". It's an Honour, Australian Honours Database. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 1 January 2001. Retrieved 2 January 2023. For service to Australian society in mineral science and engineering	Australian government document	Australian government document, but see the comment by Melcous below which sggests that it simply shows longevity for many recipients	Sufficient to cite the award satisfactorily	✘ No
The AusIMM Awards Recipients" (PDF). Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. p. 6. Retrieved 2 January 2023. in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the initiation and management of mineral research and technology through his role as Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA) and involvement with research organisations throughout Australia.	Awards given by this institute	Awards given by this institute	One paragraph, top of page 6	✘ No
ATSE. “All Fellows	Part of list of all fellows of this organisation	Part of list of all fellows of this organisation	Verifies membership and death date in almost no words	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Centenary Medal was given to 15,841 people (plus every centenarian alive in the country at the time) so I don't think it would qualify as "scarce" or automatically confer notability. Melcous (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the table based upon your comment. I do not necessarily see the need to modify the wording of the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets criteria #3 of WP:NPROF, which also covers non-academic researchers. He was an Honorary Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy as described here ans well as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, whose election criteria are described here. See List of fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Timtrent, if you believe that the references that support these are of "no consequence", you should not be evaluating articles in this area. Your evaluation of the sources in the table is not correct for these types of awards. Think election to the US National Academy of Sciences, which is an independent evaluation of a person's contirbutions and whose announcement is the appropriate source. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We differ. That is why we are having a discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cheme.stanford.edu/academics-admissions/financial-aid/phd-financial-aid-overview/nationally-competitive-fellowships but these mostly concerns the US. I am not sure what the fellowships you mentioned mean in Australia, although if these fellowships mean something comparable to the list I linked above, I would say #3 is a reasonable argument in favor of keeping. I'm not putting in input either way and I'm going to defer it to someone more familiar with these fellowships. Graywalls (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this discussion was had in January, where the outcome was keep. Since then, more references, though debated, have been included. Carey3146 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep by arguments of Starry. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entry in Who's Who in Australia is not insignificant, and StarryGrandma makes a compelling point that NRPOF#3 is met. --Mvqr (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per argument by StarryGrandma. Shoerack (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The FTSE is a learned society and to be a member means being elected into the fellowship. That alone would like be enough for notability. Being president of the industries associations is more than than enough when combined with the fellowship. He is a senior figure in that industry. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on my current understanding of the fellowship. However, the article does need a lot of trimming and neutralization. Graywalls (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on substantial content from different web sites, particularly those that talk about awards. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability appears to be met. The creator and major editor of the article has finally disclosed that they do have a WP:COI, so the focus should now be on rewriting the article to meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Melcous (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOMINATION: Finally the creating editor has acknowledged their COI at WP:COIN and interested editors may now work unhindered to retrieve a useful article from the strange state it is in today. There is no purpose in prolonging this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSI: NY#Mac Taylor. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Taylor[edit]

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: NY#Mac Taylor. Spinixster (chat!) 10:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the list of characters from this show. What we have is a gigantic plot summary and nothing but. WP:GNG failure all across the board, aka WP:FANCRUFT. Time to put it out of its (and our) misery. Wikipedia =/= Fandom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like many other articles about CSI characters, this could use a trimdown and has few non-primary sources listed. Still, let's see if there's enough out there to keep our fellow Wikieditors' hard work visible to the public. Before I start my search, I suspect that characters from spinoffs are likely to have less coverage than those from the original, at least in its heyday. Here I go! ...darn I am getting false positives from real dudes named "Mac Taylor." Okay: Looper, E! Mac and Monotheism: Remembering 9/11, Surviving Trauma, and Mourning Work in CSI NY Allrighty. I'm feeling satisfied that sufficient sources exist even though they're not used in the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the sources now.
- Looper is just trivia on who the actor played before.
- E! is an interview with an executive producer for the show with some plot information at the top.
- JSTOR is refusing to work for me, but based on Google previews, the chapter doesn't seem to focus on Mac but the show itself. I'll check this later once I have access to JSTOR.
Spinixster (chat!) 09:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; it talks about the character specifically.

Disagree; see above.

Someone has to actually read it before we can assess it, yes.
Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it may talk about the character specifically, but that does not mean that it's enough to establish notability. The first source only talks a little bit about the character at the top; the rest is about who the actor played before. Same with the second, but it's an interview.

Also, after reading the book source, my opinion still remains that it's more about the show. Mac is only mentioned in some plot summaries. Spinixster (chat!) 09:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the charters list as it does not meet the fictional characters notability criteria as there is no substantial coverage, the article is nothing but a fandom page .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is creating a confusion for regular readers (also for me when I read for the first time). After doing some research, I think that this article does not meet the notability criteria for fictional characters. Also, If available and possible, then redirect this article to the list of characters of the show.--TheProEditor11 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, all but once sources in the article are episodes. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not enough reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also noting that the event has now passed. ^Complex/_Rational 21:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asian Games closing ceremony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not site any source. It was moved to draft recently and was declined 3 times for not having sources. The article is WP:TOO SOON. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event happens in 7 days, there is no point in deleting this it'll just be recreated the same day as the required sourcing will become available. Jumpytoo Talk 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo. To the nominator: you can boldly send it to draft if you feel it's WP:TOOSOON. Conyo14 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the event is so soon this will soon be updated. GraziePrego (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. No point in deleting only to have it almost certainly resurfacing a few days later. At the very least, draftify it until the time comes (though I honestly don't see a point in that too). S5A-0043^Talk 01:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Arconning (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman al-Omari[edit]

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

Being mistaken for a 9/11 terrorist doesn't warrant an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear cut WP:BIO1E case. Jfire (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable individual. GraziePrego (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brijesh Singh (Indian Politician)[edit]

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

Article created by blocked sock, subject the principal secretary for a non-notable branch of a politicial party. BEFORE did not satisfy notability and only brought up a few hagiographic PR news releases. Sohom (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Sohom (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NPOL.—Alalch E. 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General secretary of a political party's regional chapter is not an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL, but the article is sourced nowhere remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Party secretary is not a notable position, nothing that I can find to keep the article for sourcing. Appears they might have been in a TV show based on the sourcing in the article, but I can't comment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Mickeler[edit]

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

As per my PROD nomination: Fails WP:GNG. There is only one significant source (The 2009 Le Journal des Arts article), which is an interview, which are generally regarded as weak sources with regard to notabiliy. The rest of the references are not significant (like auction listings, or announcements by companies he owns), or are newspaper articles which only quote Mickeler in passing regarding auctions he had consulted on, which is not significant coverage (I have checked every reference, including french language ones). Many of the references do not support factual assertions made in the article (like his role as an Orchid technician), and the article uses overtly promotional language which suggests that this may be a COI/UPE article. As I understand, the "Museum of Dinosaurs" in Prague is a commerical and not academic museum, and the IP's objection the prod, that he supposedly passes WP:PROF, are nonsensical, as Mickeler has never published a scientific paper, and is only mentioned in passing in one [16]. I don't think Mickeler's books are notable enough to pass NAUTHOR either, I can't find any reviews of them. The Paris Art source appears to contain part of the preface for the book, rather than a review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, France, Businesspeople and Authors Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo on a man doing his job. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I endorsed the PROD, and will repeat exact the same reasons here. Spot checking sources (BBC, The Guardian, ABC) shows that the subj. is mentioned only in passing; the nominator's "significant source" is ineligible for demonstrating notability because it is a non-independent interview. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 You're Under Arrest characters. History is there for the merger. Star Mississippi 17:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natsumi Tsujimoto[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of You're Under Arrest characters unless someone is able to find Japanese sources that have more coverage than English. —siro χ o 10:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect due to sad failing of GNG. Same should be done with Miyuki Kobayakawa. My BEFORE does show some glimmer of hope in GBooks: see [17]... but that's not enough, unless someone can access it and miracolusly find something with SIGCOV. There's a tiny chance of something in undigitized English or Japanese sources... if anyone can locate them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Police, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of You're Under Arrest characters per Siroxo. - Indefensible (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Flesh for the Beast[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Couldn't find anything online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kehr, Dave (2003-10-10). "Film in Review; 'Flesh for the Beast'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-01. Retrieved 2023-10-01.
  The review notes: "Mr. West is too self-conscious about what he is doing -- though his self-consciousness never turns to campy condescension -- to capture the first-degree thrills of a naïf like Fulci. Material that seemed to spring straight from the Italian filmmaker's subconscious seems somewhat studied and academic here, as if it were set off by quotation marks. Still, fans of the genre -- or "gore hounds" as they are known in fandom -- will find plenty to enjoy in Mr. West's enthusiastic approach to his work."
2. Scheck, Frank (2003-10-10). "Flesh for the Beast". The Hollywood Reporter. pp. 36, 38. ProQuest 2470988608. Archived from the original on 2003-11-23. Retrieved 2023-10-01.
  The review notes: "Although cheap looking and amateurishly acted, "Flesh for the Beast," which features a music score by the eccentric guitarist Buckethead, doesn't invite huge critical derision, if only for the palpable enthusiasm of both the cast and filmmaker for their gory shenanigans. While unlikely to achieve a place in the horror film pantheon, or even its sub-basement, the film will no doubt assume its rightful place in the video collections of the genre's more rabid -- and horny -- fans."
3. Fox, Ken (2003). "Flesh for the Beast". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2003-11-13. Retrieved 2023-10-01.
  The review notes: "Derivative, indifferently acted, artlessly photographed and awash in nudity and rudimentary gore effects, this direct-to-DVD feature mars the producing debut of longtime horror and exploitation distributor Media Blasters."
4. "Flesh for the Beast (Media Blasters, 03). D/S Terry M. West, P Carl Morano". Psychotronic Video. No. 41. 2004. p. 66. Retrieved 2023-10-01 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "A paranormal crew of six arrive at a crumbling old mansion where they encounter scary ghost zombies and three young women who taunt, tease, and beg their victims for sex before becoming killer cannibals (with now common BUFFY... style demon faces). The main attractions are gallons of blood, the gut ripping, eating (and puking) and the pigtailed underage look Cassandra (Esmeralda "Ruby" De La Roca) who is naked in the longest standout sex scene. The Euro Pauline (Carol Hoermann) is raped on a bathroom sink. A flashback features the occultist killer (Aldo Smanbrell from many Italian westerns) who built the mansion and a gypsy fortune teller (Caroline Munro). With Jane Scarlett (from Newark, Ohio) as the blonde who has psychic visions (and also gets naked), Sergio Jones as the sinister new owner, Barbara Joyce as the other succubi, and Clarke Beasley Jr. as the muscular, bald black group leader who (surprise!) dies first. The noisy discordant music by guitarist Buckethead is very effective and the cinematography and fast editing work is top notch. The guest stars (both also in THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD) are interviewed as part of the letterboxed DVD extras. West directed Seduction Cinema sex movies. This was made in Yonkers, NY. See feverdreams.com"
5. Morales, Jorge (2003-10-08). "Flesh for the Beast". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2003-10-12. Retrieved 2023-10-01.
  The review notes: "An eccentric millionaire (is there any other kind?) calls ghostbusters in to exorcise his shadowy manse, which he says "makes Amityville look like a spinning teacup ride." Turns out the house was once an upscale brothel, and its former residents now haunt the premises in the form of insatiable, flesh-eating succubi. But this setup's merely an excuse for redundant scenes of satanic sybarites, hosed down in blood, writhing on pentagrams, and pulling their still-living visitors' guts out as an amuse-bouche. It's all gleefully over the top, but neither particularly campy nor scary. For those who like a little t&a; with their blood and gore, however, Flesh for the Beast serves up ample portions of each."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flesh for the Beast to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources presented by Cunard show it is notable. Thank you!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Would you consider withdrawing? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will do - thank you ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek Street[edit]

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

Article does not cite any reliable sources. HaeB (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references found for this gang, what's in the article is not RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only non-notable, but I'm pretty sure this is also completely WP:MADEUP. Everything online about this supposed "gang" all seem to have been created within the last couple of days, including spam posts on Reddit and the "Fan Wiki" for the group being cited in the article. The "sources" in the article include another Wikipedia article in which the creator of this article tried to edit this gang into, the recently created Fan Wiki for this "gang", and a picture of an fake newspaper article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources. Just a couple postings on reddit in the last few days. Faolin42 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is a hoax. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Xpress[edit]

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

BEFORE brings up no sources. The sources provided are eithier listings of the company or inaccessible articles (ref 1 does not resolve via DNS) Sohom (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and West Bengal. Sohom (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are non-English references that can be found as my search did not find anything that could be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No useful sources were found on a google search. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Fargo-Moorhead, Inc.[edit]

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

It seems unlikely that a company that owns radio stations in only one market — Fargo–Moorhead, of course — could possibly attain the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG. (Not helping matters is that the second incarnation has to compete with a cluster that actually calls itself "Midwest Radio Fargo-Moorhead", which might be why it instead does business as "Radio FM Media" — and that other cluster owns all but one of the stations that were part of the first incarnation of the company [the one exception was promptly swapped back to the second version, long story short].) This has been tagged for needing additional sources since November 2012; alas, they seem unlikely to emerge. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any sourcing that meets WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores National High School[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2010. No hits in Google and GNews. Two passing mentions in GNews Archives. Strongest claim for notability is that it was established by Batas Pambansa 288 . While that is a good source, it's not enough to establish notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. There are other schools in various towns with the same name. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kulendra Bishwakarma[edit]

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

Another spam page about another folk singer from Nepal that fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NBLP because they've released all their music on their own label and paid for their press Expressive101 (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Revenge AFD. I have my misgivings about the author but not all their articles are on obviously non-notable topics, and we simply can not condone harassment and bullying. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The AFD Nomination of this article lies in the intention to pursue targeted editing rather than Wikipedia's deletion policy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endrabcwizart&diff=prev&oldid=1175757021. Therefore, I kindly request to restore this article. Thank you.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been AFDing against the particular creator and seems to be case of trolling. The communication between them dosen't seem healthy. Suggest both of them to take a break and cool down. nirmal (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Kulendra Bishwokarma received recognition from the Nepal government with the prestigious Prabal Janasewa Shree 2022.^[1] In addition to his singing career, he has been contributed a lots of thing in musical sector.^[2]^[3] Therefore the subject clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the source are reliable and indipendent.Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "गायक कुलेन्द्र विश्वकर्मा प्रबल जनश्री पदकबाट सम्मानित". Breaknlinks. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
^ "Kulendra Bishwakarma". Lens Nepal. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
^ "कतार हिँडेको केटो काठमाडौंमा हिट गायक". Online Khabar. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Somalia national football team. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia national under-20 football team[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage on this team outside of score-keeping websites such as this one. Notability tagged since June of this year. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Somalia. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somalia national football team if sources cannot be found. Giant Snowman 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot‎. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony (2nd nomination) is open. Star Mississippi 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jijo Antony[edit]

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

Fails BLP, GNG and BIO.

Draft was twice rejected at AfC, this is a copy paste move, draft still exists with AfC rejection comments at Draft:Jijo Antony.

Editor was blocked "for abuse of editing privileges", regarding the creation of multiple rejected drafts editor then copy pasted into mainspace User talk:Godjo J#September 2023 2 ANI Link.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
"Book my show" promo	1. "Jijo Antony". Book My Show. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
Subject one sentence mentioned. About a film	2. ^ "'Adithattu' Box Office Collection: See how much Shine Tom Chacko's deep-sea thriller earned in three days". Times of India. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
Promo interview	3. ^ "The evolution of Jijo Antony". Gulf News. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
Promo interview	4. ^ "Prithvi's Darwin is no 'Pokkiri'". On Manorama. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Jijo Antony talks about the risks of shooting the film entirely at sea". OTTplay. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
Subject not mentioned. About a film	6. ^ "53rd Kerala State Film Awards: Complete list of winners". The Indian Express. 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-24.
404 page	7. ^ "ഓരോ സിനിമയും ഓരോ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ്". Reporter Live. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
Database entry	8. ^ "Jijo Antony". FiLMiBEAT. Retrieved 2022-07-02.

BEFORE showed name listings, promo interview, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

Given the history, request salt. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on nom's investigation. The article as it stands is a CV with one minor note of color added, so very little is lost. I do not recommend salting for two reasons (1) this seems to be the first time this article may be deleted, (2) the subject may already be or may soon be notable, and a good faith editor should be able to create this article without requiring an admin. If this becomes a repeated problem, we can salt at that point.

Note that it's pretty likely an article could be drafted as Adithattu does indeed seem to be a significant film with a fair bit of coverage and recognition. I highly recommend going through AfC. —siro χ o 06:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" Is very very clearly the case here. Director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, as required, and the last to date won an important award. According to the guideline, he is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: Author blocked as sock. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural Keep, nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges and Universities Sports Association[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2009. No hits on Google News or Google Books. GNews archives show several mentions of CUSA basketball games but that's it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFAIK CUSA closed shop already. CUSA opening ceremonies were standard fare in newspaper sports page back in the day. NCAA Season 99 opens today and UAAP Season 86 next week; unless we're not neutral and Wikipedia is only for rich kids' leagues (larong mayaman), then this should be kept. Philippine Daily Inquirer in 2000, 2002, Manila Standard in 1999 and 1996. All of these in Google Books and Newspaper archive. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a legitimately encyclopedic topic, it should be easy to find in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, which includes sources published in the Philippines in languages other than English. So, where is the sourcing? Not saying there's not any, but a "keep" rationale that just alleges that newspaper sources exist isn't going to convince anyone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the WP:RS in the Philippines are in English, at least those found on the internet. Google Books search hits are plentiful. This one of the league opening in 2002 is pretty in depth. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Withdraw nomination the article has been expanded with sources from national broadsheets. Consider this as a withdrawal of the nomination. Thank you for expanding the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Cardoza-Moore[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL. People do not become notable for running in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. As far as I can tell, she has not produced any notable films either. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is not predicated on her unsuccessful bid for election. Its mainly about her political activism prior to that, and resulting controversies surrounding her political appointments (combined with her other activities such as politics and film). There are numerous articles about her in newspapers, much more than the few I included in the article. I'll be adding more as a result. Thismess (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she got a bill passed in the Tennessee state legislature, produced several non-notable films, founded a counter-jihad group, and unsuccessfully ran for office does not make her notable. She is also not notable just because her appointment to a certain commission was controversial. I do believe she fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what matters is that the media thinks she is notable, which they clearly do. Thismess (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that this subject does not pass WP:NPOL. That being said, this subject has received WP:GNG level coverage beyond simply being a failed political candidate, such as [[18]]. Thus, this article should be expanded, not deleted. User:Let'srun 03:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: even then, I wouldn't consider her to be a notable producer at all. I can't find her works being awarded Emmy/Telly awards almost anywhere, unless you look at some obscure biography site. I'm not even sure if her works have received an Emmy award; this says it's just "Emmy nominated" and not "Emmy awarded".
B3251 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody said she is primarily notable for her film productions (although it is part of her activism). Thismess (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Florida, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep looking at the references, I think this article passes WP:GNG. I looked through the references which seem to establish notability. I have looked for further referencing from RS but the article does seem to be limited (for now) to the references already used. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions on this article. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Some of the content could be reconsidered under WP:FART, but that’s separate from the deletion nomination citing notability. Zsinj^Talk 01:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Phillips (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)[edit]

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. WP:BEFORE doesn't show enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Mundo[edit]

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Doesn't pass GNG, nor any SNG. NotAGenious (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV, and expansion can take place at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Nelson[edit]

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect Let's have a look. The American Library Association is playing around with the character.[19] The Independent [20]. Newsweek [21] Except for the library one, which I wouldn't use in the article, these are more about the show than the character. Google Scholar is giving me trouble because there's a real-life Brody Nelson who wrote a bunch of papers. Google Scholar search for "Brody Nelson" and CSI produced nothing. Let me think about this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent source is a summary of the show and only briefly mentions the character. Same with Newsweek (note that the article was written after 2013, and per WP:NEWSWEEK, it's a case to case basis on whether it can be used). Of course, as you said, the library one shouldn't be used. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for this. Deletion is valid, but there are mentions in sources that might fit as part of the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ocimar Versolato[edit]

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

Cited for Notability Issues Since 2010 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Brazil. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on improvements to the article since the 2010 tagging. An editor added obits in several large Brazilian media outlets about the subject in 2017, which would establish notability. We should remove the notability tag in the article given this.

Longhornsg (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delvis Lumpuy[edit]

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

The subject made one appearance for the Cuba national football team and no longer plays for Villa Clara. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG, I believe he is notable enough since he played at a U-20 World Cup, he is notable enough because he played in one of the worlds biggest competitions, since wp:NTEMP saids that Notability is permanent, if he was notable during the U-20 World Cup (which I say he was since how major the competition is), he is also notable right now. CubanoBoi (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated through WP:SIGCOV. Playing at a U20 World Cup is not sufficient. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a unbolded, unstated Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, there was no significant coverage I could find in online sources. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, I too am unable to find anything online that might prove otherwise Josey Wales^Parley 20:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating this for AfD alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three): These pages are indeed all examples of what is discourage by WP:NOTMEMORIAL writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion but I was asked to revert my closure and relist this AFD so that's what I am doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, detailed data on a well studied and scrutinized international conflict. All three pages need cleanup and removal of certain data to address WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns, but the pages should stay imo.Mistamystery (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only the text. The tables listing each individual incident falls afoul of NOTMEMORIAL. On the fence about the gallery at the end. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery should definitely go, imo.

And honestly, I think a combined single timeline of incidents (also limited only to the conventional timeline of the intifada, which these days go past) would, i think, be a useful and insightful window into the civilian oriented violence timeline of the conflict.

Regarding the sources, while they are some of the most prominently present compilations of incidents, they are by no means primary or solitary sources for these events. Helpful, if not crucial guides to the total documented events, but pretty much every incident can be backed by secondary sources (and should be).

This wiki page has been referred to constantly across the internet for many years now, and its information (and not from the B’tselem or Foreign Ministry pages) has been linked to from many domains.. I think it’s dangerous territory to batch delete necessary collection work like this just because of pat redundancy concerns. There isn’t enough good faith effort to attempt to justify people’s actions, and I’m seeing far too many quick-trigger page deletion requests for my own comfort. Would really appreciate endless notes and attempts before we just clear pages like this out.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Second Intifada#Casualties. Most of the info is already duplicated there, but there are some stats that aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:PRESERVE. Information is too useful and reported by reliable sources. Also it's better to have both Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties in a single article. I don't think this falls into WP:NOTMEMORIAL since names are not even mentioned, but only the attacks. Dovidroth (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the tables are just copy pastes of exactly two B'Tselem web pages ([22], [23]) and one Israeli ministry of foreign affairs page ([24] - also not a reliable source) that are all very much memorials. The resulting list here, which is predominantly composed of events that are not individually notable falls foul WP:NOTDIRECTORY even if not WP:NOTMEMORIAL, though taken as a whole, even without names these lists are still effectively a memorial. That the information is "useful" is not a policy-based argument for it to be kept. It is only here because it already exists out there on the internet at archive.org whose job it is to retain information. The suggestion above by Clarityfiend to simply delete the tables/lists and leave a stub of vaguely encyclopedic prose would ~~be ok too~~ not be of much worth either, see below. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete covered at the main article well enough currently; the topic might be notable enough for a split, but the coverage at the main article seems better to me so a TNT seems appropriate here. AryKun (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True on that last point: the main page for the conflict already has better prose, so the prose here is also not particularly worth salvaging. So WP:TNT does indeed likely apply to that portion also. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After delete vote and nomination statement have been withdrawn or struck, I see a consensus to Keep this article. This closure was complicated by the fact that an editor moved this article during the AFD discussion which messes up an AFD closure so I have moved it back. Please do not do this again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Parthian–Kushan War[edit]

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

Yet another battle/war article that looks more like an attempt at glorification than anything else. None of the refs have a page cited. One of the cited refs (by Peter Fibiger Bang, page 339), which I just removed for being misused, literally says the following about this so called "second" "war", which was for some reason ignored: "There is also this exaggerated reference to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians".

To add to Bangs statement, it goes without saying that "900,000 killed" is an incredibly absurd (WP:REDFLAG) number for a "ten year war" during the Late antiquity. Iranica: "The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000: Justin 41.2)." HistoryofIran (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Central Asia, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The refs do actually have pages cited (in the URL, just not in the metadata), but they don't fully support the text. I'm not finding anything for "Second Parthian-Kushan War", either. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically in fact the first Parthian-Kushan War took place when Kujula Kadphises conquered some regions from the Parthian Empire Jonharojjashi (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So Jonharojjashi completely disregarded both my comment here and my edit summary, reverting me and restoring the misused Bang citation, accusing me of removing it to "easily nominate the article for deletion" and referring to me as "an Iranian" twice instead of my username [25] [26]. I think that says it all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford source says "there is also this exaggerated to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians" So why remove the source when the uncertain claim is unsure whether it is exaggerated or unsubtantiated It is needless to say that does not disapprove the Chinese sources which refers to that conflict Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...What? "Unsubstantiated" means "not supported or proven by evidence" and "exaggerated" means "excessively or inappropriately heightened, inflated, or overstated". --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Zurcher a German historian who translated the inscription about Kanishka's conquests mentions the 900,000 casualties on the Parthian's side Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed your both concerns-

1. "None of the refs have a page cited" which asilvering has denied such concern and actually it is cited or redirected to the archive.

2. "900000 killed" yeah I have addressed it too and edited it properly according to your concern. But you should not confuse 900k Parthians with 900k Parthian army, as the sources never stated any 900k Parthian army. That is why I didn't put this number to the strengths of belligerents.

Now consider removing the deletion tag from this article If I had addressed all of your concerns and talk further if it was not. Jonharojjashi (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Bangs statement, WP:PST and WP:REDFLAG. You have not addressed anything. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable (but re-title). AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it for dealing with problem users. See, e.g., Ghirshman, Iran, p. 262. Or Thorley, "The Roman Empire and the Kushans" JSTOR 642511. These (and there are a few others) are enough for me. The Buddhist source in question is not terribly late, which is presumably why it is treated seriously. Ghirshman thinks an obscure reference (he does not provide a full citation) in a Syrian (Syriac?) source may be corroborative. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to Vologases III of Parthia and Kanishka? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "Kushan–Parthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topics—they don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here. Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either [27]. If this article is to be WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously). HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. If the discussion is not closed yet then I would like to suggest that we should keep the previous Parthian casualties as the sources have mentioned it boldly and I don't think we should shadow or neglect it, as this Chinese source [28] is well translated by a renounced Sinologist and historian Erik Zürcher. Like even if it's exaggerated or wrongly, partially interpreted, still we should add it by just adding further- 900,000 killed (highly exaggerated) or According to some Chinese sources 900,000 killed. So in short I think we all should stick to the sources. I hope y'all will look to this suggestion. And I'm very much interested in Ancient warfare history so I can give my minuscule contribution to this project/article. Msangharak (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not move articles that in the middle of an AFD discussion as it complicates the closure procedure. Also, an AFD is not the proper place to debate details about content, this is just a forum to determine whether or not this should be a standalone article and Kept or Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Content changes can be discussed if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ambivalent about title (the present title or any of Srnec's options seem fine). Meets WP:N; no suitable merge target. I'm not sure an infobox is appropriate for this article, since the date, venue, and forces involved are all between very approximate and wholly unknown.
Anyone expecting accurate casualty figures from early Chinese sources is not familiar with their universal trope of inflating the enemy's numbers, commonly by an order of magnitude (I OR-suspect this figure is inflated by two orders of magnitude). I'd love to track down the name of the Chinese source this evidently traces back to; it's presented as transliteration only in Zürcher 1960 (which I fixed the citation for) and is apparently some little known Buddhist text from the Southern and Northern dynasties. Brill have yet to publish the ebook of the conference proceedings.
Might it be entirely fictional? Sure: anything tracing to exactly one old enough document could be, but that's not our determination to make. Benjamin 2020 (another incorrectly attributed cite, probably Citoid's fault, referred to above as "Bang" after |editor1-last=) wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but several different authors have touched on this, whether or not they believe it happened as described (although no one believes the casualty figures; why would anyone?). Anyway a massively inflated casualty figure is not a reason in itself to call this a hoax or a legend, and I don't see another reason to delete. Needs cleanup, but most articles do. Folly Mox (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who didn't read the relisting instructions! Folly Mox (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Benjamin again a few years earlier:

Craig Benjamin (2018). Empires of Ancient Eurasia: The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE – 250 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316335567. ISBN 9781316335567. pp. 191–192: Despite this account, there is no other evidence of any conflict between the Parthians and Kushans, the two great powers of Central Asia, and two of the major beneficiaries of Silk Roads trade, who seem to have maintained genuinely cordial relations with each other for two centuries. Folly Mox (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To update yall, I've done some edits at the article, clarifying that the entire account relies solely on a single source, which survives only in a translation postdating the event by centuries (typical), and is not known to be the work of historians. I've called out the 900,000 figure as obviously exaggerated, and incorporated the Benjamin 2018 source just above, bundled with his other source.
The sourcing is ok. Mukherjee and Zürcher are probably the most reputable, although Mukherjee in 1988 still subscribed to an earlier Kanishka, and placed this event around 80 CE. Benjamin seems pretty good too. We cite a book published by Pen and Sword (not a peer reviewed source) four times, plus there's the popular general readership book from Simon Schuster, and some kid's Masters thesis. There can't be much more than this given the transmission history of this event, but I don't think Pen and Sword is used for anything specific to this article – more general Kushan history – so it can probably be improved. Pen and Sword and Simon Schuster are digitised at gbooks in the annoying online only pagination which prevents adding a |page= parameter, but the URLs are consequently direct. Also in the Zürcher source, on the page following the one we cite, Kanishka talks to his horse about morality. Glad that conversation got written down. Folly Mox (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY at this point, thanks to multiple editors, especially Folly Mox's excellent work. —siro χ o 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I guess that settles it. Great and sensible points (and edits) made by both Srnec and Folly Mox - I'm taking back my support for its deletion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: striking my delete so nom can withdraw. Thanks for all your work on this, Folly Mox! -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Srnec! And User:पाटलिपुत्र. Folly Mox (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velleppam[edit]

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

Should be deleted or moved back to draft until release. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 00:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - probably WP:TOOSOON per nom. - Indefensible (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per above and nom. // Timothy :: talk 00:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Süt Kardeşler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that multiple English language obituaries for Kemal Sunal note this film as "popular", eg [29], listing it first among comedies "cementing Sunal's place in the film history". To have such a mention in such a famous actor's obituary a strong pointer that sources NEXIST. For the moment, we have:
- [30] via tr:Süt Kardeşler, 110+ words of SIGCOV.
- This book seems to have a large amount of SIGCOV: Kemal Sunal filmlerinde folklor ve mizah
- Here's an academic book published 38 years after contextualizing the film with some short bug significant coverage Sensational Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice
- This seems promising Çeviribilimde Güncel Tartışmalardan Kavramsal Sorgulamalara

Given the era and language, based on what I've found so far, I'm confident this meets WP:GNG. —siro χ o 08:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Siroxo show notability. Thank you!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Pretty much impossible for a movie with this cast to be non-notable. In addition to above, there are a couple of journal articles with a section about the movie: [31], [32]. It was reportedly the third-highest rated Turkish movie ever on IMDb. Keep in mind that most of the sourcing discovered in this discussion is from decades after release. Styyx (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mere fact that I recognize the title suggests to me that the film is likely notable, and a quick search for sources appears to bear this out. I expect that Turkish-language sources (possibly only available offline) could be used to write a fairly extensive article. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two refs Styyx appear to be from reliable and independent journals that pass SIGCOV with three fairly long paragraphs on this film. Ref 2 Siroxo linked appear to cover this film across multiple pages and probably (though I am not completely sure due to the paywall and language barrier) count towards GNG. I would say that this, which only mentions the film twice, would not meet significant coverage, though the page is paywalled so I am not entirely confident on whether or not it meets SIGCOV. Still, the three sources already are enough for a GNG pass. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "गायक कुलेन्द्र विश्वकर्मा प्रबल जनश्री पदकबाट सम्मानित". Breaknlinks. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[2] "Kulendra Bishwakarma". Lens Nepal. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[3] "कतार हिँडेको केटो काठमाडौंमा हिट गायक". Online Khabar. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[1]

[2]

[3]