Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

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. I'm just not seeing consensus here. There doesn't appear to be consensus that the awards are enough, but there is good-faith disagreement as to whether the sources are, and I'm not seeing a strong reason to give less weight to either side. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decadent (band)[edit]

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

To quote the article lead:

"Decadent (Korean: 데카당) was a South Korean indie rock band. The band formed in 2016 and disbanded in 2019. Their only studio album, Decadent (2018), was nominated for the Best Modern Rock Album at the 2019 Korean Music Awards."

So we have a band. Formed. Disbanded soon after. Recorded an album. Nominated for an award. Didn't win. No chart placement, no enduring impact or influence. No critical reception. No notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND.

And, yes, a WP:BEFORE shows some initial press release derived music media coverage and nothing whatsoever beyond that. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are already reliable sources, and even if they don't win major awards, they can prove their notability by nominations. This is written in WP:MN. And they also have news that they won first place a major music competition. (Paragraph 9 of WP:MN). Even if the band broke up after only three years of formation, the duration of their activities itself doesn't matter. (If there are sources that can prove their notability) 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait--you mean the "the Penta Super Rookie" award? Come on. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a competition hosted by Incheon. And WP:MN paragraph 8 says that even a nomination for a major award can prove its notability. But rather, I don't know why you describe it as “no award” 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • And UPDATE - 2018 EBS Hello Rookie mentioned in the article is also a major competition, and there's the source that they came in third place. I’ll add this later 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Things don't become "major awards" just because you say so. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know how to answer this… You know that most people here said the Korean Music Awards as a major award, right? 올해의수상자 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • 올해의수상자, please don't do that passive-aggressive stuff: we're not on Facebook, so that whole "you know that...right?" is uncalled for--thank you. You haven't mentioned that award here: we were talking, I thought, about the "Penta Super Rookie Award", and you brought up the "EBS Hello Rookie Award", neither of which appear to be noteworthy. And with that one nomination, you have a band that meets one of the criteria--and please note that the guideline doesn't say "is notable if it meets one of the criteria". It says may. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hello, Drmies. First of all, EBS Hello Rookie is not an award, but a competition. If you're going to check that, that's no. 9, not no. 8. Of course, it should be left to each person to judge it as a major competition, but I mentioned it as a major competition, noting that it was hosted by a national institution in Korea and that the competition was broadcast on major broadcasts in Korea. And the user who originally opened the discussion said, "This band was nominated for a major award, but it was failed in WP:Band because they didn't win," and I'm saying this isn't true. I know you edited the Wikipedia for a long time, I respect that part of you, and you left your opinion based on it. Anyway, the sentence that I started with "You know" might be a little informal, but when you said "That doesn't change just because you said that so" it felt like you were ignoring me (Because I didn't write it in my subjectively, but I wrote it with Wikipedia guidelines and some grounds.), and I was just saying it in a little angry tone, too. (Of course not as much as you, but I've also edited a lot of articles in Wikipedia, and I know the guidelines enough.) I apologise if my words were a little aggressive, but I would like to say to you that your were also a little aggressive for me. Anyway, I think the article meets the conditions if any one of those WP:Band guidelines are applicable, but I think three are (1, 8, 9). And there's a reason why I wrote about it earlier. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not notable. No two albums on a major label, no hits, no awards, nothing really per GNG besides minor coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I proved somethings with the guidelines of WP:MN. No label and no hit, you are right, but not the other two. 올해의수상자 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Drmies's reasoning. To the deletion reviewer, I would be happy for a weak keep if there is charting on SK national chart (i.e. Circle Chart) or on Billboard charts in SK or other countries and/or there is winning of a actual major awards of which there isn't other than absurd article creation of "major competition" as counterargument. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It appears, by sources now in the article, that WP:NBAND#C1/GNG is met. Such sources include [1][2][3]. Note that it seems like the album is also notable, but since they only had one major album might as well follow NOPAGE and keep it all in one article. —siroχo 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking like a No consensus closure right now. Very divided opinion on this band.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per Drmies' reasoning. The band's demonstrated notability isn't there, and neither does it seem that the awards/accolades it has are suitable enough to demonstrate its notability. GuardianH (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This band was definitely a popular band in Korea in the late 2010s, and of course, it was limited to Korea, and it is right to have a source that they were famous in order to prove that they were famous. However, I can't see why they say they're not famous even if they bring a reliable source according to the part required by WP:Band.
    • Not everyone can have knowledge of articles, which is why there are guidelines like WP:Band. When I just say "they're famous" it's not credible, so I'm showing it with reliable sources. But I'm showing they're famous in South Korean indie scene, with reliable sources and awards, but it's not right to comment on deleting simply. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought this was enough, but Now I've added more reliable sources. I thought everyone would say keep because the band's notability conditions are met, but I didn't know the discussion would be this long. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources to add today are reliable sources (4 or 5 I think), especially in the case of Seojeongmingab and Lee Kyeongjoon are professional music critics (you can see the articles like [4], and [5], This article supports that they are influential critics in Korea), and they both are committee of the Korean Music Awards. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I lived in South Korea during their time of fame, and I know they are a famous band in the late 2010s. So I added some reliable sources to the article today. Also, EBS Hello Rookie Contest is an major influential competition in South Korean indie (you can see it in the article), so I think this part should also be included in the WP:Band criteria. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For everyone information, OP was the one that created EBS Hello Rookie Contest btw so Drmies' reasoning above make sense now. They can't just say it's "major" just because they created an article and/or an article already exists so it automatically become "major" lol. Just my thoughts. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper9oll It's not just because the article was made. I'll talk about why this competition can be considered a major.
    1. This competition is hosted by a state agency.
    2. The competition is broadcast on South Korea's major broadcasting stations.
    3. Every year, the competition is covered in a reliable sources, like news
    To sum up, it's "a competition hosted by a public institution, broadcast live, recognised and influential." Even if one of these conditions is met, people usually say it's a major competition. But it has all three. This doesn't make sense if it's not a major competition. 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And he didn't know much about this competition. And when he and I talked, this article itself didn't exist. Then I would like to judge again, @Drmies 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyi, my comments is NOT a reply to your comments. Nor did "when he and I talked" happened nor am I interested on such. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to answer it 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And, chart can't be the only criterion in Korean indie music. Korean music charts have always been criticized for not properly reflecting marketability and for being too vulnerable to hoarding and marketing outside of music. (You can find this criticism at the following these links [6] [7] [8]) And, that's why "K-Indie chart" have actually been created for the indie music market since 2020 ([9]). Of course, I agree with that charts are also one of the reflections of popularity, so I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'd like to say that indie bands are hard to judge their reputation by just the "charts". That is why I am referring to reliable sources, major award nominations and major competition. It's all included in WP: Band. It is a sad reality that I have to put forward only this part to prove the reputation of indie musicians, but there is not much information about Korean indie in English Wikipedia, and I think this part should be pioneered. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll write down a description of the source. There are major and minor references here, but I think it met for WP:Band. And I wrote the words "major competition" and "prominent professional music critic," and I also prepared a link to them to show that they are often judged that way in Korea, not that I unilaterally claim.
1. [10] Major reference - an interview with the band.
2. [11] Minor reference - this is a critical article about rock festivals in 2019, where a very small reference of the last festival they planned just before disbanding.
3. [12] The record they were nominated for the 2019 Korean Music Awards
4. [13] Major reference - an article about them, interviews with them as well.
5. [14] Major reference - Herald Corporation article, featuring them.
6. [15] Major reference - article by webzine Weiv, and the writer Na Wonyoung is a prominent professional music critic. (link with reference to him (Na Wonyoung) [16][17])
7. [18] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. This is an introduction to Marie Claire's 2017 Korean indie albums.
8. [19] Minor reference - article about the Pentaport Rock Festival Super Rookie final winning 3 teams performing at Pentaport Rock Festival. It's an article that the band is one of those three teams, and the reference isn't long.
9. [20] Major reference - a band-themed article. And Seojeongmingab, who wrote the article, is a prominent music critic. (link with reference to him (Seojeongmingab) [21][22][23])
10. [24] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. One of their songs was made into a stop-motion music video, and there is an explanation about it.
11. [25] Minor reference - about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in, but not too long
12. [26] Major reference - also about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in. There's a long story about them. Of course it's up to people to decide whether to judge for a major competition, but I would say this is a major competition based on the reasons I wrote it down. (The source that this competition can be seen as a major competition [27][28])
13. [29] Minor reference - this is an article about the solo career of a band vocalist. The reference to the band is not long.
14. [30] The record they were nominated for the 2020 Korean Music Awards 올해의수상자 (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a borderline case. Interviews with the band are not independent from the subject and do not contribute to meeting notability guidelines, so a lot of the in-depth sources presented in the article are not helpful in that aspect. However, while only an essay but often cited to make a case of notablity, I think WP:THREE is satisfied here. First, the VOP reference is six paragraphs dedicated to Decadent's career and the evolution of its musical style. Second, there's the Herald Economy. The second half is an interview with the band, but the first eight paragraphs are an introduction written by the journalist. Third, Weiv is another piece that delves into the band's musical style to a degree significant enough that I believe meets the threshold of "significant coverage". This seems like enough to satisfy any concerns about notability. ✗plicit 02:48, 20 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 Hip hop music#Origins. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kool DJ Dee[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a hip hop musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main attempt at a notability claim is that he "is credited with having the first crossfade mixer in the Bronx", which might be valid if it were properly sourced to media coverage to establish it as significant, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to override the absence of valid sourcing -- but the only source here is the proprietary website of an online store selling Kool DJ Dee merch, which is obviously not independent third party coverage of him.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far, far better sourcing than just his own self-created web presence. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a subsection in the history of hip hop might be in order. I find only trivial mentions of this person [31], [32] and [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's even mentioned in a few items in Gscholar, mostly name drops, but a law journal among others, discussing the legality of sampling music tracks. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Oaktree on the merge idea. He has contributed to hip hop but he doesn't have the independent sources or media coverage to warrant his own Wikipedia page. Maybe a merge with a page on early hip hop pioneers? Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Is a pioneer really a pioneer if no-one has given him significant coverage calling him a pioneer in the past 50 years? Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you would like to see a selective Merge here, please supply a target article and a particular section would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 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! 07:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ajfan Rasheed[edit]

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

Can't seem to find anything substantial when searching for this guy, moreover he has never won a BWF sanctioned International tournament, so fails WP:NBAD by far margin. Participation in Olympics is no longer considered enough to be considered notable. zoglophie 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that enough to get away with GNG? I think not. Just by being a flagbearer, he is not passing those guidelines as per my research, still need some good sources that talk about him in depth. zoglophie•talk• 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 12 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. I found the source analysis persuasive and there was no rebuttal to it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphitech AS[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up only a few press release style articles, can't find any significant, independent coverage. Most sources in article are directory-style routine coverage or press releases. Article is somewhat promotional, as well. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I noted your kind feedback and have already added a number of book citations in order to present a wider selection or sources. I tried my best to limit any type of 'promotional' style, but would warmly welcome your guidance or direct edits to improve or remove any inappropriate content. Szchanghong (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book source that you added appears to be an academic article that was written by a Dolpitech staff member, but doesn't directly discuss the company. I also removed an internal sharepoint link that wasn't accessible to the public from the article. I'd encourage you to review this for the kind of coverage that I would like to see for a corporation. Bestagon ⬡ 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I will work harder to identify significant, reliable and secondary sources. The link you provided is very clear. Szchanghong (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the article is kept, it should be moved to Dolphitech per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP. Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! In the hopes that the edits are accepted, I have moved the current content over to the page Dolphitech. Please advise if there is anything else I can / need to do to keep things in line, and thank you for the kind guidance once again! Szchanghong (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I messed it up - please kindly assist in the speedy deletion of the page I created and I can use the proper MOVE option 9which I am now researching) with my apologies. Szchanghong (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move articles that are in the process of an AFD discussion. It messes up the tool that closes the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry - thank you for checking on my work! Szchanghong (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - References must meet the standard of WP:ORGCRIT. Outside of some industry publications, there is nothing that meets that standard. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep vote in here. A lot of editing has occurred since its nomination and I want to be sure the changes have been assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 28 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! 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That reference does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out the ones that do? There is not guideline to keep a page just because "Wikipedia should have more coverage of it." In order for that to happen, we need to have the sources that meet guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions and assessments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Based on the request for more opinions and assessments, here is a more in-depth references assessment. As Dolphitech AS is a company, we must show it meets WP:NCORP by way of WP:ORGCRIT. The assessment is based on the guidelines under WP:SIRS. Most of this is churnalism based on press releases or company supplied information.

1. Business Weekly, routine announcement with information being supplied by the company. It is an announcement of it opening a new location. The wording is even promotional, which indicates churnalism of a press release – “Established in 2009 in Gjøvik, Norway, Dolphitech was formed from a desire to push the limits of non-destructive testing. Driven by a multi skilled R & D team of experts from academia and industry, the company is constantly exploring the capability and application of cutting-edge ultrasonics, bringing proven solutions to market that are easy to deploy and simple to operate.” – Also, this is churnalism (see assessment of reference #9 below).
2. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing via ScienceDirect, an academic paper which has a single mention of one of the company’s products. Nothing about the company itself so not significant coverage.
3. Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt, another academic paper. This one talks about comparison of two of the company’s DolphiCam and that they come from the company. Nothing in-depth about the company itself.
4. Windpower Engineering & Development, Churnalism. This is from a press release which can found (in whole, or “churnalized”) here and here.
5. Composites, more churnalism and not independent. In addition to being a routine announcement, the author of this piece is employed by the company which shows it was likely a press release or that they supplied all of the information for the publication.
6. Manualslib, this is a user manual for one of its products. I do not see how this could be used for notability.
7. Unable to access. This is a sharepoint document titled “THOR Release Notes” which indicates it is not independent.
8. Reinforced Plastics via ScienceDirect, another academic paper. This one states at the top “Jan Olav Endrerud of DolphiTech describes the development of such as system.” Not independent and the article itself is about its DolphiCam and not the company.
9. BINDT, more churnalism or a routine announcement for the company opening a location in the UK. Note that this is the exact same information as reference #1 above.
10. The Epi Centre, same churnalism as #1 and #9. Same information about a routine announcement, same date range, and information likely supplied as a press release or solely from the company.
11. Unternehmensregister, I will concede that I have no idea what this site is or what it is representing for the article. However, there is no content and not in English so I cannot navigate. On its face, I see nothing about the company.
12. CR.gov, a PDF with a listing of a bunch of companies, simply verifying the existence of this company. Nothing in-depth.
13. Dolphitech, this is the company’s “contact” page of its website. Not independent.
14. Book, a book excerpt which on its face appears to be significant. However, it does not talk about the company, just the project. In addition, the authors of the except have email address listed which are to the company (not independent and not significant about the company).
15. Book, another book but this is NOT about the company. I cannot even find where it talks about the product.
16. Indian Defence Review, More churnalism and routine announcement. Reads like a press release and is even marked being writing by “IDR News Network.”

For those who believe that the article on the company should be kept because of the product, that should never be the case. Notability is not inherent. If a product is notable, it should stand on its own. Same for the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 16 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! 21:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Kobiashvili[edit]

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

Non notable. Article contains a lot of puffery and the sources aren't adequate to establish notability: a link to his blog, a couple of links to a profile on LatestLY and a press release. A search for more sources mainly brings up social media, like LinkedIn. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. ContributorMix (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Keep - This article fits in every standart of biography of an entrepreneur, and by this logic wikipedia has to start deleting all articles about entrepreuneurs. I want to say some words about notability, Indian news agencies are writing articles about this person, he appears in Indian media, even has published an article. His work is spreading globally. About sources, it is not an actual problem, adding sources is the less difficult problem after all of this "charges" for this article, it needs time, and every of users is able to do it, instead of putting some requests in the head of article.----ჯეო4WIKIMessage MeContributions 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are too general. If you want your argument to be taken into account, be more specific. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE failed to show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLP require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:01, 12 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! 23:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. More of an advertisment than an article. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entrepreneur means businessman, so routine. Having a blog isn't notable, rest of the sourcing is puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References seem exaggerated, feels like advertising, doesn't meet WP:GNG.Dcotos (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 19 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 23:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean ruling class[edit]

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

Seems too broad in scope, and has a lot of issues with prose, POV, and sourcing. toobigtokale (talk) 23:01, 12 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 Outpost Gallifrey. As this will still leave the history, anyone interested in doing a merge can do so at their convenience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Podshock[edit]

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

Podcast doesn't appear to be notable, no serious sources. William Graham talk 22:59, 12 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 23:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhara R Babu[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:NACADEMICS. While there are quite a few sources that state that this individual has contributed significantly to their field, all of them (that I could find) are closely associated with the subject and possibly written by them directly. Per NACADEMICS#1, academic impact needs to be demonstrated through reliable independent sources, and those are just not there. They also don't seem to meet any of the other relevant criteria. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:23, 12 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 to delete; moved to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. This discussion is dealing with multiple separate issues: whether Louk is notable as a person, whether having this article violates WP:BLP1E, and whether her kidnapping is notable. There is no clear consensus around all of these issues, and many !votes do not address many of them.

There is a clear consensus against having a biographical article specifically about Louk, but there is no consensus as to whether her kidnapping is notable, or if the article should be redirected or merged to Re'im music festival massacre or some other location. Therefore, I am moving the article to Kidnapping of Shani Louk, an option which has attracted significant support in this discussion and a concurrent RM (permalink). This close does not preclude renominating that article for deletion immediately, and such a discussion, if it occurs, will be much more focused than what this has become and will hopefully lead to a clearer consensus. (non-admin closure)‎ Elli (talk | contribs) 22:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Louk[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BLP1E. Going through the criteria:

  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. checkY She has been covered only for having been kidnapped as part of the Re'im music festival massacre.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. checkY She is a tattoo artist who has never been any sort of public figure.
  • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. checkY Although the massacre as a whole is clearly significant, her role in it was not substantial, as she was one of hundreds of casualties. The use of or in the guideline means that this is sufficient to fulfill this criterion.

The video clip that made Louk famous is covered in a paragraph at Re'im music festival massacre, which is a sufficient level of detail for our encyclopedic purposes. This provides an additional WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:NOTNEWS rationale for redirection beyond the BLP1E argument. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ForsythiaJo, Teterev53, VintageVernacular, Alalch E., Agustin0110, Alousybum, and David O. Johnson: pinging those who have edited the page. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Now we're going to see these memorial-type articles, like we did with the war in Ukraine... This person was not notable before the incident, they aren't notable at this point in time either. Very much a run of the mill individual Oaktree b (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL has very little to do with an article like this, that is about a globally covered topic. Further, notable does not always mean remarkable. It's a question of whether this person being the most famous victim of a major historic event, due to appearing in a viral video related to that event, seen all over the world, means that that the individuals's role [in the event] was [or was not] ... substantial (third bullet of BLP1E). To be clear, being a victim of an event is defined under WP:VICTIM as having a role in the event:

    Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

    For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes),

    1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. /Example: Matthew Shepard./
    Being "one of hundreds of casualties" (quoting Sdkb) is not the same as "being the most recognizable out of hundreds of casualties due to having appeared in a viral video". This is very close to being WP:NOTBLP1E (it's possible to see the coverage of what happened or is happening to Louk as persistent coverage; example), and a much stronger reason for me to support redirection is that there are appropriate existing articles (which is really WP:PAGEDECIDE).—Alalch E. 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. The event (of her kidnapping by itself) is clearly notable and has been described as one of the most shocking moments of the Hamas offensive by reliable sources.
Em um dos vídeos mais chocantes da ofensiva do Hamas sobre solo de Israel…
The 22-year-old tattoo artist was seen in one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed…
etc.
RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source linked above includes "confira também" (Google translate: check it out too) links to: "Influencer diz que não faz sexo há 2 anos porque homens se intimidam com beleza" (an influencer discussing her sex life) and "Estrela pornô preocupa ao atingir marca de 900 cenas após quase morrer em filme" (worries of a porn star), and a story about people eaten by a bear, so this seems to be a questionable and tabloid source; the second source listed is the WP:DAILYBEAST, which has no consensus for reliability and describes the event as "one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed." Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many precedents for articles on victims that can be found in categories such as Category:Terrorism victims and Category:Murder victims. She is not just any casualty, but the one who has become the face of this conflict in media, comparable to Rachel Scott for the Columbine High School massacre. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rachel Scott article was created on 25 November 2003, more than four years after her death, and listed as a potential candidate for deletion several minutes later [35]. By 29 November 2003, the article was updated to include a list of books published by her parents [36]. The current Rachel Scott article is much more developed and has related book and organization articles linked, and notes a film based on her life (2016 Guardian review). By contrast, there has only been a few days of sensationalized and repetitive news coverage available to support this article, which makes this article unbalanced; and according to WP:BLPBALANCE,

    The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

    Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre per BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM ("This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions"), as well as the limited information currently available, which is not sustained WP:GNG coverage nor sufficent to demonstrate enduring WP:EVENT notability at this time; this article should therefore also be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) - add redirect target to comment Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AVOIDVICTIM says: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The issue is whether the coverage is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. It means "avoid secondary victimization (through poor coverage)", not "avoid writing about victims". —Alalch E. 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage appears to be poor because it is limited, repetitive, and sensationalized, so WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems to further support a redirect in addition to the nom's rationale to pare this topic back to a neutral and on-topic summary at the redirect target. Characterizations of this subject as "the face of this conflict in media" or "one of the most shocking moments of the Hamas offensive" or "the most recognizable out of hundreds of casualties" do not appear well-supported by reliable secondary sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre: Rationale per nom, and notability (of the event) should be passed on to the notability (of the subject) here. – robertsky (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that the article was WP:BLAR before by the nom and was reverted by the author almost immediately, therefore the AfD here with the intent to redirect instead of delete I suppose. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk or redirect to Re'im music festival massacre § Hamas's assault. I'm between those two. While Shani Louk had many news articles dedicated to her in multiple languages, her story has not really developed enough to differentiate her from all the other kidnapped victims. I'm leaning towards redirecting to the festival massacre, and reassess the situation later if the situation develops. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the music festival for now, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If additional sources appear in a few years, then we may want to reassess at that time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: The Die Zeit piece is a retrospective piece about Shani Louk's case in the context of the broader hostage situation and has "Shani Louk" positioned on top of the title.—Alalch E. 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the Die Zeit piece, based on a Google translation, seems to emphasize the limited information available about Louk at this time, and a focus on the broader hostage context without specific reference to Louk. The piece includes interviews with her family members, in the context of limited information available and various reasons why information is limited. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The headline is not what you said, that is only the subheadline. The headline is "The desperate search for the smallest trace" next to a portrait of Louk's mother, clearly referencing the widely publicized case of Shani Louk. So widely publicized that there's no need to even state the name, but for those readers who have missed the news, there is "Shani Louk" spelled out on top of the headline. About 80% of the article is about her case. —Alalch E. 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting my error copying the title - I adjusted my comment above to fix it. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for the correction. —Alalch E. 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Re'im music festival massacre, per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important international event, gained ginat public recongnizion around the world. dov (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has become a symbol linked to the attacks that occurred on the first day, more specifically to the Re'im music festival massacre. She is already relevant enough for her biography, which is also available in Portuguese and in simple English, to remain. I think it is correct to keep this article in Wikipedia, taking into account that we can also find biographies such as George Floyd or Omayra Sanchez (who were not public figures before their deaths, but became iconic figures that should be covered encyclopedically). Salvabl (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion that she may become a Floyd or Sanchez is classic WP:CRYSTAL. And other language editions is another notability fallacy called out at WP:Arguments to avoid. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That is complete non argument and you seem to be drawing conclusions on evidence that doesn't exist. It is complete WP:OR. She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war and per above, it is a argument to avoid Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I just mentioned Floyd and Sánchez to illustrate that it is not always necessary to be a public figure before. Determining/measuring the level of relevance is always difficult. Floyd's relevance and Sánchez's relevance are not at the same level; however, I consider that both require encyclopedic coverage. On the other hand, you have state that "She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war"; I respect your point of view, but I have to say that she (Shani Louk) is the only kidnapped person in this war whose name is known to me, because she has had a significant coverage, superior to the coverage that has been given to other civilians involved in this war. Salvabl (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. Professional historians would never create such an article like this, because it is far too soon to determine if she historically significant and that is reflected in how poor the references are.

Your statement make no sense and is a completly arbitary and non-standard way of looking at notability. The fact her name is known is not histrically significant and no reflected in modern history and how is it documented. scope_creepTalk 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The references don't support this WP:BLP and its not a historically significant individual. It is seems to be a memorial type of article perhaps created by editor who has WP:COI . It is also a WP:BLP1E. All reason not have this type of article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The coverage is immediate and consists of affliate with very slim detail. Non of it can really WP:SECONDARY and none of it is historically signifcant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. Had this been a one-off this article may have survived. However, she is one of thousands victimized in a major event and it is likely that she is not the only one undergoing the experiences described at this moment (consider every atrocity dispute in related talk pages). Borgenland (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borgenland Hello, you've already !voted in this AfD (October 13). Please strike one or the other comment.—Alalch E. 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh I totally forgot about that one. I’d like my first comment removed. Borgenland (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it. I've struck it. (I don't think it should be deleted entirely.)—Alalch E. 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk and Keep as her case has received significant publicity and global media coverage, more than any other single victim, making it notable.Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. Thanks ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. In addition to the wide coverage this has received, including coverage on multiple national-level news broadcasts, editors claiming WP:BLP1E are wrong here. It must meet each of the 3 criteria for BLP. This fails criteria #3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Even weeks after the event, there is wide, ongoing, and sustained coverage in national and international coverage, including American international media German international media, [37], Brazilian media, among others. Not to WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I'm sure whenever news of her whereabouts surface, given the high-profile of her brutal kidnapping, there will be more sustained international coverage to augment here. Longhornsg (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The objection is that Louk's role in the Re'im music festival massacre was not substantial, not that it received no press coverage. We need to decide whether BLP1E still retains any power whatsoever as a bulwark against WP:NOTNEWS. Keep in mind that the example given at the policy page of an article to retain per criterion 3 is John Hinckley Jr., the guy who shot Reagan. Retaining an article on Louk, where your go-to example of "sustained coverage" is a Newsweek article (RSP-yellow) that adds essentially no new information that was not already known shortly after the kidnapping (the stuff cleanly summarized the paragraph at the massacre article), was absolutely not the intention of that criterion. If BLP1E is insufficient to prevent articles in textbook cases like this, it has been nullified to the point of uselessness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:RSP, WP:NEWSWEEK (the "American international media" link in the comment above) is now owned by IBT media, which "introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism," and the third link in the comment above is WP:BILD, listed at RSP as a generally-unreliable tabloid. The brief Brazilian coverage notes her German relatives, and repeats limited coverage about the video, limited biographical information reported by Der Spiegel, and limited information available about Louk's current status. The German news reporting includes ongoing coverage of her family members, reiterates the limited information currently available, and recycles reporting from the tabloid WP:THESUN. The source also discusses other missing and kidnapped people. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 19 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! 07:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Road crime unit[edit]

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

Weird fork article, no sources, "road crime unit" as an entity completely non-notable (I'm sure there are many individual "road crime units" but the concept / entity as a whole does not need an article. Elshad (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources or claim to notability. Reywas92Talk 23:01, 12 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! 07:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thys Nywerheid[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 12 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! 07:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Shootout[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 12 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! 07:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Şanlıurfa Belediyespor[edit]

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

Are clubs at this level notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 12 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 Glossary of motorsport terms#L. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leg (rallying)[edit]

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

Isn't "leg" a general term used in lots of races? Why does rallying deserve a separate article on this? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Wonk (talk) 21:15, 16 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 Wikt:Outside. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outside (Alaska)[edit]

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

I soft-redirected this to Wiktionary (wikt:Outside), but was reverted by Beeblebrox on the grounds that this shouldn't be done without discussion. I believe the article fails WP:NOTDICT, as it has no substance beyond a dictionary definition and I was unable to find sources that could be used as the basis for an encyclopedia article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Alaska. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No comment on the article itself, but I strongly disagree with the notion that WP:BOLDly redirecting is somehow not allowed. Both WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R make it clear this is allowed, though it can of course be contested. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems like clear dictionary (not encyclopedia) material to me. As such, deletion or soft redirect as an alternative are appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do some additional research in historical records and other material to see if I can find additional references, but right now, I support a redirect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wikt:Outside. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FatCat96 (talk) 05:19, 14 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 (non-admin closure) Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Leonard J. Waks[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC; the only possible criteria is his distinguished professorship, although Hangzhou Normal University is not a major institution of research even in China. There is only one source in the entire article, and it is rife with WP:NOR. There have been a large amount of additions by WP:SPAs and possible WP:COI IPs/editors. GuardianH (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Distinguished professorship; Lifetime achievement award from John Dewey Society; H-index of 28; reviews of his books [38], [39], [40], [41]. Meets WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof as above. Nominator needs to study WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure about the distinguished professorship, but citation numbers look like they might be a pass of WP:NPROF C1 in a low citation field; I also take the John Dewey Society activity somewhat seriously. A cursorary search found several reviews [42][43][44][45] of his books, which could yield a solid WP:NAUTHOR. I trimmed the indiscriminate list of journal articles, and more trimming is likely needed, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The GS citations look healthy for a low-citation area (264,153,136,103,74), all single authored, with a fairly slow drop off thereafter. Reviews of the subject's several books with major publishers have also been presented. Meets WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per editors above who know what they are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MAJORITY is not an argument, I'm afraid. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Phooey! But since, for once, the editors who don't know what they are talking about haven't turned out, further discussion is unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 18 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. I have no opinion on the Draft article or what should happen to it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Wren[edit]

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

Another one that is entirely universe plotline and should be kept on wookiepedia. Propose revert to previous redirect MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sabine Wren is a major character with notability extending beyond the in-universe plotline. The article should be marked as a stub with much potential for expansion, as it does not consider most of her storyline in Ahsoka. Also, Comment: Draft:Sabine Wren still exists, so it appears that something has messed up in the conversion of the draft to mainspace. TNstingray (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @TNstingray The current content in the article was directly copied from the draft article by IP user 81.34.93.251 (without attribution), who then proceeded to blank out the draft (although its content has been restored later). I think a history merge might be applicable here if the current content in the article was to be kept.
(Side note: Should the AFC submission template on the draft be removed? The "review in progress" one was added by the IP user mentioned above.) Jolly1253 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) (Update: The template has been reverted back to "review waiting". Jolly1253 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. secondary SIGCOV in
    1. Karen M. Walsh's Geek Heroines: An Encyclopedia of Female Heroes in Popular Culture [46]
    2. Ken Napzok's Why We Love Star Wars: The Great Moments That Built a Galaxy Far, Far Away[47]
    3. Derek R. Sweet and Dominic J. Nardi's The Transmedia Franchise of Star Wars TV [48]
    4. Jason T. Eberl, Kevin S. Decker and William Irwin's Star Wars and Philosophy Strikes Back: This Is the Way [49]
Agree with need for history merge.
—siroχo 21:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Siroxo's booklist, an abundance of online references (a few of which I've added), as well as the fact that this character returned the Mandalorian Darksaber to royalty and created the artwork (Wren phoenix crest) that was the basis for the Rebel Alliance logo that is used all over Star Wars movies and spinoffs, she is significant enough to have her own page. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sabine Wren is a major character with huge notability in many Star Wars productions.
Merlyn26 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sabine Wren is yet another character in Star Wars. She has not been a main protagonist of any project yet, and has not gained a cult following or have been of significant importance to Star Wars universe to be notable. F.Alexsandr (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Each of these points is demonstrably false. She is a main protagonist of Rebels and Ahsoka, has a significant following, and is of significant importance within the Star Wars universe to be considered notable. TNstingray (talk) 20:42, 19 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 Karpno, Bytów County. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kraklewo[edit]

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

A bot-created article by Kotbot, a bot run by retired user Kotniski. The location in the article is empty forest.

The only source in the article is a link to the Teryt database (the Polish equivalent of GNIS), using the SIMC code from the Polish version of the article I find a listing that says, in machine translation, that Kraklewo/Klaklewo is a part of the village of Karpno, something I also confirmed from the Polish regulation list place-names (część wsi Karpno). We already have an article about Karpno, Bytów County. Kraklewo appears to be a non-descript location and not obviously inhabited. The article is incorrect in saying it is a settlement - that would be an osada under Polish law, but it is not classified as that. There is nothing more to say about it than that it is a location on the map.

Fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE. I'm agnostic over whether this should be deleted or redirected to Karpno - the name is at least not something that could plausibly be used for something else, and is part of Karpno. On the other hand we should not simply create redirects for every named location in a village. There is no content to merge, though. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 12 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 Idea Factory. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otomate[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:08, 12 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 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Ravine, California[edit]

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

Although listed in GNIS as a "populated place", I can't find any evidence this site ever was populated, thus failing WP:GEOLAND. It is just a ravine, and since nothing of interest is documented to have ever happened there it also fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion as to notability, but I did find a decent article from The Folsom Telegraph dated 23 August 1890 that details a coal mining business established in Hawk Ravine in 1864 that was active still in the 1890s. Presumably the employees of the mine were residing in Hawk Ravine.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a link? When I was doing my WP:BEFORE I found another Hawk Ravine in Nevada County. That's not the one described in the article...would be nice to know which one the Folsom paper is referring to. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I accessed through the wiki library: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/474798284/?terms=%22Hawk%20Ravine%22&match=1 Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I found the article and it's not clear which Hawk Ravine it's talking about. But regardless, it's a passing mention; the article simply gives it as a location and is mostly about the effort to restart a mine. We can't determine anything more without OR, so I stand by my claim that the location is not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a "passing mention" for WP:GEOLAND purposes given the length of the article. It gave enough history about the mine and its prior activities to be more than just a passing mention. If the mine is the reason the for settlement's existence than I would consider it WP:SIGCOV. However, if there is more than one Hawk Ravine, California I agree that it's not clear which "Hawk Ravine" is being referred to. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GEOLAND only gives a pass to legally-recognised populated places. GNIS is not evidence of legal recognition under WP:GEOLAND, nor is this article. A populated place cannot just inherit the notability of a mine within it. FOARP (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, thank you for adding soruces. Going forward could you please provide a link to the source, even if it's paywalled, so that others can find it more easily? Thanks. –dlthewave ☎ 00:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave I am accessing through the wiki library and that gives urls that are not accessible to the wider public and are not appropriate for inclusion on a wiki page. I'm not sure how I could get a url link that isn't connected to the wiki library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realized that had changed. As a workaround, you can login through your free personal newspapers.com account after opening it from Wikipedia library and take a clipping of the article. Then, go to the non-Wiki [www.newspapers.com] page, login, go to your Clippings and you'll find the clipping with a shareable link. Not the most elegant solution but it works. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Under the Guidence of James I Felter of Sacremento" from that we can infer it is the one in california. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are in California, one in Butte County and one in Nevada County, NE of Sacramento. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when i read this I thought it was California State & Nevada State. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as it stands, delete The problem that is obvious to me is that there's nothing here that is inconsistent with Hawk Ravine being, well, a ravine, which is to say a larger area more or less identified with a physical feature. GNIS is bad at this because the people drawing up the maps weren't all that good at it either, so going back after the fact and trying to puzzle out what the map makers meant is even less reliable. This is exactly why passing references made to locate businesses or whatever aren't any good, and in the case of a mine, more often than not the mine isn't in the town if there is one because people don't want to live in the middle of an industrial site. We know that there's some place called "Hawk Ravine", but we don't actually know what it is; we need sources that spell out what it is in enough detail to make it clear that the authors aren't just making the same kind of assumptions that are showing up here. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe. Reliable sources describe a mine and geographic feature, not a populated place, neither of which meet our notability guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 00:59, 14 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Bakr[edit]

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

Does not meet the expectation of coverage set out in NSPORT. Subject has two caps for Egypt, but there is no coverage of the subject except for a profile from UC Irvine and a profile in the Orange County Register. Enos733 (talk) 18:25, 12 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 23:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osowo Małe, Gmina Lipnica[edit]

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

A bot-created article by Kotbot, a bot run by retired user Kotniski. The location in the article is an empty field with a couple of what appear to be barns nearby.

The only source in the article is a link to the Teryt database (the Polish equivalent of GNIS), using the SIMC code from the Polish version of the article I find a listing that says, in machine translation, that Osowo Małe is a settlement (Osada) in the Gmina of Lipnica - no other information than this is provided. Osada under Polish law are not required to be inhabited and can be part of other settlements. Typically they are just individual buildings/farms, but sometimes there is nothing at the location.

This location is not a village (that would be listed as a wieś, not an osada), nor is it a hamlet (that would be a przysiółek), there is no evidence of inhabitation and good reasons to think it is not inhabited (there is nothing at the indicated location, the buildings near it don't appear inhabited).

Merging is pointless as the only accurately and reliably sourced information in the article is the name. No reliable source is provided for the location, for example.

In terms of redirection, there is no obvious redirect target - Osowo Duże ("Big Osowo" as compared to Osowo Małe which is "Little Osowo") is also an osada and appears to be an individual farm. Really Osowo Duże is also highly dubious in terms of notability but at least it isn't obviously not inhabited by anyone. Redirecting to Lipnica also seems pointless since this is at most just the name of a couple of buildings in Lipnica, a community of many, many buildings - such a link is unhelpful per WP:UNHELPFUL.

TL;DR this is a mass-created article that fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE, WP:GNG and WP:IINFO. FOARP (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seriously, all these articles based on database entries that say only "X is a place at Y coordinates and Z elevation" need to stop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. If a town/village is not notable enough for more detailed information then it is undeserving of a page Yoblyblob (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed@Yoblyblob - I entirely agree. Sadly the WP:GEOLAND guideline has been read as allowing all these articles to be created from databases at a rate of one-per-minute, and then you have to spend 30 minutes to an hour proving that wrong by showing they either aren't legally-recognised or have never been inhabited, when the reality is they just blatantly aren't notable. Really the GEOLAND needs to change to be more restrictive to stop all this WP:IINFO, but that's another discussion. FOARP (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coordinates point to a single farm. –dlthewave ☎ 01:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Pl wiki has a footnote about former names, suggesting some kind of historical significance, even if mostly etymological at present. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 17 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baseball Confederation[edit]

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

The summer collegiate baseball league fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage of the league. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan721 I think I was pretty explicit that there was independent significant coverage of the league itself and not just games in my original comment. Cbl62 has kindly provided links to some of them below. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 14 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 23:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lise Kjaer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Attempting to avoid EN bias, however, I cannot find articles to support WP:SIGCOV. The article appears to be more about her keynote speaking than any single event but still reads as a resume. 30Four (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably passes as an author, [50] and was the editor of a substantial book [51]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the best that can be said is she "probably" passes as an author, that seems like it really shouldn't be a keep vote. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not judging the suitability of AUTHOR, only that it seems to pass in my limited capacity to review the sources at hand. Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage, sources are dead or unreliable or connected to the subject. On top of that the article reads like a blatant WP:PROMO. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 5 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! 17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sources confirm she delivered a few presentations but lacking in-depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Note that she doesn't have a Danish Wikipedia article - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:52, 19 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 23:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miomir Đuričković[edit]

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

Footballer who does not satisfy general notability or sports notability. Contested draftification. This article was originally created in article space, but (correctly) draftified by User:Paul Vaurie for more sources. What was also needed was better sources. More sources were added, but none of them are significant coverage, and another copy was created in article space.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 fksarajevo.ba Pictures of players on the team No No, only a picture Yes No
2 www.sofascore.com A database entry page Yes No Yes No
3 sportsport.ba A page about his contract with the team No Yes Yes No
4 cg-fudbal.com Mention that he played for the team Yes No Yes No
5 int.soccerway.com/ A database entry page Yes No (although plenty of information) Yes No

Since there is also a draft, the article should be deleted, and the draft can be kept for improvement. The article was created by a copy-paste from draft space, so a history merge would be in order if the article were kept, but it does not need keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL so that now redirects us to WP:SPORTBASIC. Unless WP:GNG or SPORTBASIC are met, the article must be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 18 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! 07:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wavetick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no sources were found during a before search. I would say being founded by Sharooz is a CCS, otherwise I would have used A7. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 12 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! 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia National Youth Championships (baseball)[edit]

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

This youth baseball competition fails to satisfy WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage of the event. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:52, 12 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 IT security standards. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information security standards[edit]

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

I think this is not notable. When I proposed this for deletion I was asked to consider redirection or merging. However I am not sure what article it should be redirected to or if redirection is suitable. And merging this info into an existing article may not be suitable either as it is completely uncited Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncited, so there's no value in to trying to add the contents anywhere else as it'll just get removed there for having no sources. lizthegrey (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IT security standards. While the article has an unsourced claim that the two topics are distinct, I don't believe that this is supported by RS. It's possible that some people do use the terms that way, but it does not appear to be common at all, so this title should be a redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IT security standards per Alpha3031. I found a textbook on it with SIGCOV: here (like Alpha3031 said, the textbook doesn't support the two topic being distinct). IMO not worth merging instead of redirecting.. DFlhb (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the aforementioned page. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:22, 18 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. Discussions about renaming can take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flags used in Russian-occupied Ukraine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable source significantly covers this subject. The article is based on a collection of non-neutral, non-independent primary sources, aggregated by editorial WP:SYNTH, and some blogs or hobby websites, none covering the entire subject. No evidence that this can be improved.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia, and Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Maybe a name change to "List of flags used in the Russia-Ukrainian war", however I see it as being merely a list that needs a citation overhaul. Here are a few sources I found: 1, 2. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 03:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is about historical flags, with the single exception of the DNR flag. The second is about the Flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. They do not demonstrate that GNG support keeping this subject.  —Michael Z. 14:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. And I support the renaming proposal. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. This is the only page where we can keep these flags. Unless we make a "List of Flags of Kherson Oblast" etc etc solely for the purpose of transferring over the contents of this article. Scu ba (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a list would still have to satisfy WP:LISTN. Keeping these flags is a task for a hobbyist blog, not for the encyclopedia, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY.  —Michael Z. 14:01, 19 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 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Computer mediated environment[edit]

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

When I proposed this for deletion I was asked to consider merging. On consideration I doubt merging is suitable, as this article is unsourced Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or incubate - The article fails nearly all of the WP:GNG. And there are no WP:RS!
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:00, 12 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon (character)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. Primarily a plot summary, and it's only non-primary source is a top 10 list where it is not spoken about in detail. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G - Extremely minor character that honestly only had a handful of non-cameo appearances in a fifty year period. Pretty much the only kind of "coverage" of the character comes in the same form as the one source being used in the article currently - short entries in various churnalism "Top Ten Dumbest Spider-Man Characters!" type articles. I'm honestly not a fan of merging every non-notable character into the massive "List of Comic Characters" lists, especially from articles that rely pretty much entirely on primary sources, but since the character has an entry there already, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to move over a few sentences worth of description to that list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:50, 14 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Jenkins[edit]

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

Same reasons as the main beetle article; primarily a plot summary, and it's only non-primary source is from screenrant, a notorious content farm. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:45, 12 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OptaPlanner[edit]

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

Non notable software. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 12 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 Lucki. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freewave (EP)[edit]

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

There isn't any notability shown on the page. It's just a tracklist with one random review as a source. Locust member (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would advocate WP:MERGE but the majority of this article's content is already covered in Lucki's own Wikipedia article. A search for additional coverage per WP:NALBUM yields few results: Stereogum, Complex, and Hypebeast are the most significant sources that covered the release of the EP but I would consider the write ups to be trivial and did not find any coverage associated with its legacy or impact, just the release.
Vegantics (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lucki: I found three brief articles covering the release which would be good for the artist's article, but don't provide enough to justify an independent article, and that's all I could find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:42, 12 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Gargan[edit]

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

Almost all of the sources he is mentioned in are top 10 lists by content farms that don't go into detail, and the others are just "oh yeah he's in this along with some other characters". Industrial Insect (talk) 12:09, 12 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 Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that the previous discussion's consensus on keep was a bunch of users claiming that "scorpion isn't a minor comic book character dude.", and "I like it". Additionally, I like what user Higher Further Faster said; "In my opinion, if this page gets deleted, many pages should be deleted as well" I'm working on that right this second. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you need to chill out on that because the volume of AfDs make it hard for anyone to research Keep votes and could be counterproductive. While I don't disagree on many of the noms going for articles on the grounds of some sort of "if you say so" to a comment in a past AfD is not a good look either. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to apologize for that greatly. I got sorta delete happy upon noticing how many comic-related articles do not have any RS, so I figured this would be a big, productive way to contribute to the encyclopedia. And, if I understood that last bit correctly, I would like to clarify that, no, I did not start nominating articles for deletion because of that comment. It was more of an unnecessary snarky remark, as I had wanted to do this for weeks now, and I finally just started. Again, I would like to apologize. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done, though snark isn't something I'd recommend in AfDs and nor is calling out an editor not in the discussion, as either could lead to misinterpretation about your motives =) Regarding the volume of nominations, I happen to be in full agreement that a number of Marvel pages don't warrant standalone pages and should be edited and merged into the character lists. However you must bear in mind that not all notable sources are on Google, particularly for niche examples, and to give people interested in doing so chance to check other resources. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims of the last discussion that were made by @StarTrekker:, @Darkknight2149:, @BOZ:, @Rhino131:, and @Higher Further Faster:. Let's here what they have to say about this second nomination of this character. Also, @BoomboxTestarossa: is right about what he said to the nominator. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator should rethink their mass nominations of comics articles.★Trekker (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close The previous nomination was among the numerous low quality mass-nominations of character articles carried out by TTN, Piotrus, and others between 2020-2022. There was a consensus that the article passed WP:GNG in the previous nomination and it hasn't been a year since then. Darkknight2149 19:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources found by ★Trekker in the last AFD - do you see anything for the more than a dozen other articles they nominated? BOZ (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I'll tag @Piotrus too, since he was the nom in the og discussion. None of the sources you found in the last AfD discuss him in detail. Additionally, no good arguments were made in the previous discussion, except for "he's not a niche character". Have you guys noticed we aren't fandom? Something's existence does not warrant it's inclusion here. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my previous comments, including analysis of the sources found which I concluded fail SIGCOV. I see no reason to change my mind, but I am happy to provide feedback on any particular source if anyone makes an argument it contains SIGCOV (an argument, not an assertion). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on what fellow editors have said and on the recent edits made on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higher Further Faster (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hobgoblin (comics). Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Kingsley[edit]

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

A middling rank on one top 100 list is not enough for notability. There's also a random link to some dude's let's play... as a source??? Additionally, we already have a hobgoblin article, (which, to be fair, probably isn't great either), so this is entirely unnecessary. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I'd suggest the Hobgoblin page, but Kingsley has also operated as Devil-Spider at some point. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who the heck is Devil-Spider? And why does his existence mean this article needs to exist? Industrial Insect (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was a costumed alias that Roderick Kingsley operated when he was in Ecuador as seen in Amazing Spider-Man #691. He also sold this costume to an unnamed criminal when putting together the different franchises that are mentioned in the article. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hobgoblin. Agree that the individual aliases of Hobgoblin are not likely to be notable on their own. Yes he also used to alias Devil-Spider, but he is far more well-known as Hobgoblin. Rhino131 (talk) 13:28, 16 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 War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches. As this will leave the history, anyone interested in doing a merge can do so at their convenience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Mars and Providence[edit]

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

This unreferenced article seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK (don't be misled by footnotes - they are all notes). The article is just a plot summary, catalogue information, and said notes (OR commentary). My BEFORE failed to find anything but passing mentions (the best one is a paragraph in Gizmodo here, but I think it is not enough per SIGCOV and like). Per ATD I suggest redirecting this to the anthology it was published in (War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches), which seems notable. Said anthology had a number of reviews, some of wich likely mention the story - there is a tiny chance this could be salvaged if anyone could access them. The one I found here sadly fails SIGCOV with regards to this story. ISFDb notes that the story has been reprinted in several venues ([52]) but lists no reviews. For now, I fear the dedicated entry for this can just exist on fandom (https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/To_Mars_and_Providence). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 12 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 crossings of the River Thames as the delete !vote does not indicate why it shouldn't be redirected, just that it shouldn't be a standalone. Star Mississippi 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eysey Footbridge[edit]

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

Nothing on the page shows that this bridge meets the notability criteria. I don't see anything else which could be used as a RS. It's a footbridge. That doesn't make it notable. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 12 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 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TC Business School[edit]

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

Promo of the company only. There are no independent sources and generally does not meet WP:GNG criteria. FromCzech (talk) 05:57, 12 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 Worldbuilding#Geography. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional geography[edit]

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

Redundant to Worldbuilding and not a phrase used by anybody that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two equally supported Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should have crossed out your previous lvote, which I have done for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 12 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 03:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of South Ossetia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. After fourteen years, the article’s references are the subject’s own “official” website, videos and lyrics from user-generated-content sites, and a “patriotic” website.  —Michael Z. 03:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second trip to AFD so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there clearly isn't enough independent coverage of this topic.Cortador (talk) 12:58, 5 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! 04:46, 12 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. GEOROAD is not a pass to ignore the overarching policy, which is that content must be verifiable. If we genuinely only one source and that only tells us the length then this not only fails the GNG but we can only source a single line in any article.

The SNG makes it clear that not all roads fall under it so a draft while sources are found would be much better than leaving OR up.

The Roads editors would really benefit from being prepared to move all these stubby articles into regional lists. It's going to take all the drama out and my experience over many years and very much recently is that if you force the community to choose between an SNG or the GNG/N then the SNG loses every time. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F102 highway (Nigeria)[edit]

F102 highway (Nigeria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Largely unsourced article that explains nothing about why this is important for a general purpose encyclopedia; only source is a list describing its existence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” This is a national highway so GEOROAD would apply here. Also more research can be done to find sources about this road, and sources in other countries can sometimes be hard to access and may not be online. Dough4872 14:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept a compromise and redirect to a list article until as and when other sources are found? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not acceptable here. This clearly passes WP:GEOROAD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if sports can have articles by the dozens about random players that are nothing but database entries, then why can't we have article on roads that are, well, nothing more than database entries? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Africa, and Nigeria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—per WP:N, which says that meeting an SNG or the GNG means a topic warrants an article. In this case, the SNG os WP:GEOROAD, which this meets. Since it meets the applicable SNG, it passes the notability policy, full stop. Imzadi 1979 → 03:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NROAD states that federal highways are typically notable, not presumed to be notable. That's an important distinction, as this particular SNG does not proscribe notability to all federal highways, but rather indicates that federal highways are likely to meet WP:GNG. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Not only did I not find SIGCOV, I couldn't even verify the continued existence of this designation. A Google search within the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Transportation's website returned no results, and broader web searches using Google and DuckDuckGo also turned up empty save for a few mirrors. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I plan on expanding this article further. This is an highway owned and maintained by the Federal Ministry of Works, the federal government of Nigeria and as such, clearly passes WP:GEOROAD. Therefore, this article should be kept and allowed to be expanded, it's not as if it's a very short article.Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "It's not as if it's a very short article" is a classic argument to avoid (and conversely, "this article is short" is not a good reason to advocate deletion). Without sources, we can't determine anything in the article is factually correct (eg: "The F102 highway spans approximately 2183 kilometers" - that seems awfully precise for "approximately", "is a vital transportation route, facilitating trade, travel, and connectivity" - in whose opinion?) I can't in good conscience cite WP:GEOROAD as an argument when it appears to contradict the verifiability and deletion policies (cf: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed") However, if the article does get deleted and people want to work on it further, I'm happy to restore it to your userspace - as I would be for most articles deleted at AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to everything Ritchie said. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a minor highway, hardly notable. Nowhere near as significant as the Pan-American Highway for example. Furthermore, the article is poorly sourced. Its first reference contains only one sentence about the F102 highway while its remaining two sources only talk about Nigerian roads in general and not this route specifically. A lack of good references suggests that the article contains original research, which is discouraged here per WP:OR. Something is not right (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available reference material (or the lack thereof) would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I have tagged two claims with {{failed verification}} where the information in the article is not present in the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 5 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! 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - lean towards draft - this is one of those occasions when every solution is wrong. If we delete, then we appear to be using a standard which wouldn't be acceptable for roads almost all European or NAmerican countries. If we keep, we are allowing a lot of content to remain on the page unverified. There are some indications that there may be more information offline - part of the road was apparently funded by the World Bank, it appears to be referred to in Nigerian Federal Law etc. Is it enough? I don't know. It doesn't even seem possible to establish how important this road is and how much traffic uses it - so I'm thinking we should probably draft until basic verification can be done. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that outcome. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:32, 20 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 Wipeout (2008 game show) and Wipeout (2021 game show), as appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wipeout obstacles[edit]

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

As I had said when originally proposing the article deletion, "The article has had the same issues over the years (still no sources, still original research, still indiscriminate, etc.) and more continues to get added with none of these issues being resolved, likely with the new info making the issues even moreso. Either the issues should finally be addressed, or (more likely) the article should be deleted. Frankly, I'm not even sure if a 'list of' article like this can really be fixed when it'll likely still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE." --- Another editor also endorsed the proposed deletion, but an IP seemingly objected to the proposed deletion, saying, "All Fixed! All Done!" when all that was 'fixed' was removing the entirety of the proposed deletion. Magitroopa (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and massively, massively shorten into Wipeout (2008 game show) and Wipeout (2021 game show) BrigadierG (talk) 04:20, 12 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 03:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asd Hockey Marzotto Valdagno[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:NSPORT, and lacks any third party sources (only links the website) violating WP:BESTSOURCES Aydoh8 (talk) 02:44, 12 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! 02:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO 251[edit]

ALCO 251 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any RS we can use for this type of diesel engine. Only sources are from railfan websites, which lack proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2011-06 V18 engine (closed as Kept - withdrawn by nominator)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 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! 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Since it has two general independent published sources, its age should give it grandfather rights to prevent deletion.

As for inline citations using RS, I note that one of the two listed sources (Steinbrenner) is heavily quoted on the ALCO 241 and ALCO 244 articles, and that there is a section on the 251 in Kirkland, John F. (1989). The Diesel Builders, volume 2: Alco and MLW. Glendale, California: Interurban Press. ISBN 0-916374-81-5.. Kirkland was not a railfan, he was a fomer Baldwin engineer. So, I feel that the proposers supposition that there are no RS for this article is false. — Iain Bell (talk) 09:00, 28 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! 02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if there was an evaluation the addition of new content to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 12 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. Also, the proposed Merge to Daum Communications which is a Redirect page which is unsuitable for a Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tistory[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. The two sources which aren't dead links in the article are unfamiliar to me and have not been evaluated for WP:RSP. Searching news turned up a lot of pages with content from Tistory, but nothing that could establish notability. There may be foreign-language sources that I was unable to access. ~TPW 14:49, 20 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! 01:41, 28 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! 01:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Hoping to get some new eyes evaluating this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While I am basing this on Google Translate, the ko.wiki article seems to be little more than a feature list and launch history, lacking evidence to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 12 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: C. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Master[edit]

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

Exclusively primary sources. Hasn't received any non-primary sources since it's creation 2007. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:45, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burglar (character)[edit]

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

No non-primary sources. I feel like this is less of a character and more of a reoccurring idea, but that's just my opinion. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CTRL+C CTRL+V-ing all these discussions with "Keep or merge in the spirit of Preserve" does NOT add ANY extra weight towards your argument, and I'm kinda concerned since ALL of these discussions have nearly the exact same arguments for keep. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for @Rtkat3, but as I stated at Wikipedia:Help desk#Same arguments at similar AFDs.: -
    "triggering an AfD is easy and simple, posting a Keep argument that's properly researched effectively takes as long as creating an article, particularly for a niche area where a lot of reliable sources are offline (in the case of comic book characters things like The Comic Journal, Amazing Heroes and a lot of small-run books). Seeing as there was and is no sign of @Industrial Insect having done much more than an online search before mass-nominating a group of articles - a common problem with AfDs in the area - I see no reason why I should drop the projects I'm currently working on to effectively research 18 articles in a week on subjects I'm only peripherally interested in. But on a point of principle I try not to allow under-researched AfD nominations slide as I've seen far too many articles in desperate need of clean-up saved without the AfD process involved; the articles are just waiting for someone genuinely knowledgeable in the subject to find the time to bring them up to scratch or make a genuine, informed decision as to whether they're tenable. My cut-and-paste votes directly reflect the amount of effort the nominator put in to a) attempting to salvage the articles before nominating and b) researching the before."
    Hope this helps. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Instead of A.) Actually trying to bring good arguments to the AfD or B.) Not participating, you decided to vote out of spite. Didn't you yourself advise me not to be rude at AfD? Industrial Insect (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting way of reading it, and it's curious that you've sidestepped the stuff about your questionable Before. Not sure how much joy you're likely to get out of this "I don't think this is good enough, everyone else needs to run around and justify it to me" approach to Wikipedia, TBH.

I mean, with any of these nominations have you attempted any content cleanup through editing? Have you looked at any potential merge targets? Have you done any Before that isn't just typing keywords into Google? If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then the nomination is undercooked and potentially frivolous, and you're expecting people to do more work to Keep than you expect to do for Delete. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • and regarding rudeness, I did indeed say that, and look what happened - you've cast aspertions on at least one good faith editor, lunged in on any votes that don't go the way you want them to, attempted to fire up a Batsignal at the Helpdesk because you also didn't like the way some of the votes are going, and also expect other volunteers to do things you can't be bothered to do. None of that suggests to me you are treating other users with the respect needed, bluntly. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm for closing all the AfDs as keep since that's been the prevailing consensus at all of them before. I did a lazy BEFORE, and it's obvious that I'll be reaping what I sow. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:45, 18 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stilt-Man[edit]

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

All primary sources except for a tweet, which obviously cannot be used. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:40, 12 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: R. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer (comics)[edit]

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

Only sources are primary ones Industrial Insect (talk) 01:35, 12 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: R. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Racer[edit]

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

Only two non-primary sources are from a CBR and Screen Rant articles, both of which are top ten lists that they are not extensively covered in. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:33, 12 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Rossi[edit]

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are either episodes (primary) or secondary sources that are interviews or more about the actor, and 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 Criminal Minds characters#David Rossi. Spinixster (chat!) 14:32, 27 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!) 14:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Criminal Minds characters#David Rossi. While there seems to be some coverage in sources [53], [54], [55], the extent to which this is non-routine and significant is questionable. He is a recurring character, but most other recurring characters for this show don't have their own article and so I don't see a reason why he should either. Willbb234 16:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article for a major character in a major TV show is expected and accepted on WP. There are numerous third party sources discussing the character (in fact, there are pages of Google News results, not all diamonds, but there is a lot, and there are many in RS). There is a lot of plot discussion in the article, but that is an inditement on the quality of the article, not whether it should be deleted. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide some examples please. Willbb234 19:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has a lot of sources does not mean that it is inherently notable. This would technically count as WP:SOURCESEARCH. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 10 different sources. I'm not saying this is going to be a featured article, but this should be more than sufficient to pass GNG.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but this seems like nothing more than trivial coverage for fans of the show; we need to look for something which provides some kind of examination of the character and demonstrates that he is something other than just another recurring character on the show. Some critical analysis would do the trick. Willbb234 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any guideline which tells us to disregard sources which are aimed at fans of a show. But you’re entitled to your view. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sources...
  • First source is both a plot summary and an interview.
  • Second source is an interview.
  • Third source is quoted from an interview.
  • Fourth source is quoted from an interview.
  • Fifth source is a plot summary.
  • Sixth source is a sneak peek of the show.
  • Seventh source is an interview about the character's comeback.
  • Eighth source is an interview about the character's departure.
  • Ninth source is a teaser about the character's romance. CinemaBlend is listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S either way so it shouldn't be used.
  • Tenth source is a plot summary for the final episode.
Overall, you will need non-trivial sources that talk extensively about the character. Interviews (which are primary) and plot summaries aren't going to cut it. Sources that prove the character's significance outside of the show will. Spinixster (chat!) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't 'need' anything. And if you want to hold TV character pages to this high of a standard, I advise you to get started, because there are hundreds of pages you missed. Not to mention movie, book, and comic characters. I know "other stuff exists" but let's be real. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This high of a standard" is wrong; Wikipedia has always had "high" standards for pages. This rule even applies to non-fictional elements, in fact, it's already listed in WP:GNG. It's just that only a few people check these pages and actively check if they are notable, and if I nominate the "hundreds of pages I missed" at the same time, AfD would be overwhelmed. Spinixster (chat!) 15:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Simons, Roxy (2022-11-24). "What happened to Rossi's wife? Joe Mantegna on 'Criminal Minds: Evolution'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  2. ^ Longeretta, Emily (2022-11-24). "'Criminal Minds: Evolution' Cast on David Rossi's Shocking Loss and Garcia's Romantic Future With Alvez". Variety. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  3. ^ Shomer, Jason (2023-03-11). "Criminal Minds: Evolution's Showrunner Never Seriously Considered Killing Rossi". Looper. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  4. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2022-11-25). "Criminal Minds: Evolution Premiere's Rossi Reveal Explained By Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  5. ^ McCormack, Olivia (2022-11-25). "'Criminal Minds' is back. Where are the characters now?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  6. ^ "Rossi Gets His Groove Back in This Exclusive Criminal Minds: Evolution Sneak Peek". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  7. ^ Schaefer |, Stephen (2022-11-20). "Joe Mantegna reboots role for 'Criminal Minds: Evolution'". Boston Herald. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  8. ^ "Criminal Minds ' Joe Mantegna Films Final Episode After 12 Years: 'I'll Miss Playing David Rossi'". Yahoo Entertainment. 2019-05-14. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  9. ^ published, Britt Lawrence (2018-09-25). "Criminal Minds Is Giving Rossi Some Romance In Season 14". CINEMABLEND. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  10. ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray (2020-02-20). "'Criminal Minds' Series Finale: The BAU Gang Hunts Down Its Final Psychopath Before Giving A Tearful Goodbye". Deadline. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect due to no reception/analysis sections. Ping me if they are added and I'll reconsider, but for now I am AGFing criticism of the sources above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources El cid, el campeador provided. The article needs work – mainly addition of reception, casting and development (real life info) – but this can be done without the article being deleted. If it is not kept, it should be merged into the character list. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already said what I said about the sources above. They do not talk extensively about the character. Spinixster (chat!) 02:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge/Redirect. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per those above. There is sufficient coverage of this character to support a separate article. BD2412 T 01:23, 12 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 International development. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International development consulting[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2010 with no attempts at improvement. These very broad industry topics are very difficult to assess notability, but I have been unable to find significant secondary coverage on this topic outside of a blog post and passing mentions in books. Might be best to redirect or merge to consulting firm. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Merge to - International Developement PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:30, 20 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! 01:06, 28 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! 01:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Never had any sources. Is wikilinked from just 5 articles using the term "international development consulting" (no caps) as if it is a generic phrase. The external link to "official website" goes to ICF, previously known as "Inner City Fund" and doesn't use the term "international development consulting". In fact, the phrase itself is self-defining. I posit that it is not a company, and is perhaps a category of types of companies or NGOs, but certainly not a category/type that is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Deletion or Merge? And if Merge, to which of the targets mentioned in this AFD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to international development for now. There is currently approximately zero content suitable for merge at the moment. It may be possible for the industry to be covered on a standalone article at some future date (no strong opinion whether that should be at another title, should it hapen), though I am personally expecting WP:NOPAGE here. This, though, is not it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging @Grorp and PaulGamerBoy360:: Are we okay with a redirect to international development per Alpha3031 above? We need consensus here for action to be taken. For the record, I support a simple redirect to international development as well. 13:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs)
I would not agree to a redirect. The article International development consulting is almost identical to its original version in 2010, as is the article Public sector consulting which was created by the same user; the only edits they ever made. [56] Both articles should be deleted. There is nothing of value on the talk pages, nor any edit history that is valuable to keep—which would be the only reason to keep it as a redirect. Delete it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:13, 19 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Records[edit]

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

Article about a record label, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for record labels. This article literally just states that the label exists, the end, and sources that existence entirely to a WP:CITEKILL jengastack of directory entries and content on the label's own self-published website -- but as always, simply existing isn't automatically enough in and of itself: an article has to have context for what might make the label significant, and it has to have sources that represent independent attention being paid to the label and its work. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Norway. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This label may be an important Norwegian outlet; among its signees are Thomas Dybdahl, Sondre Justad, Aurora, Kvelertak, Bjorn Eidsvag, and Kaizers Orchestra. It may be a subsidiary of one of the majors, which would merit a redirect at minimum. I don't know enough about the Norwegian music scene to really adjudge this, but some digging, particuarly in-language, is warranted before a summary culling is carried out. Chubbles (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to accomplish with the above name drop? Association with notable people don't cause notability to transfer. For notability to build based on association with notable people, sources independent of the people involved need to establish that as the reason behind notability. Re-direct is a good idea if there's a single target that is a great fit. Re-direct can be easily created at any point in the future, so there's no harm in just deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Record labels exist to promulgate musical artists; they are only worthy of encyclopedic attention insofar as they release music of musicians worthy of encyclopedic attention. WP:MUSIC, appropriately, reflects this. This label has released music from a substantial number of musicians worthy of encyclopedic attention, and so, at minimum, the article serves as a nexus for linking the related artists to each other (though the article can also do more; this is only one of its functions, but perhaps the most important one). Chubbles (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having trouble finding anything substantive in English sources, but according to Billboard, the label had the #1 record in Norway at least twice. [57] [58] 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Comment that said, deleting the article in its current state would be no loss, per nom and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:53, 22 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! 01:02, 28 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! 01:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this seems to meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important labels, I'm leaning towards keep on this one, certainly until we hear from someone who speaks Norwegian and argues a lack of coverage. Chubbles (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus exists to the application of NMUSIC to record labels, which is generally presumed to fall under NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not saying this to me, as he has said it to me before; he's saying it to all of you. But he's not correct on this. There is no general presumption of this, though he has pursued the establishment of such a general presumption. Regular editors in music have never applied NCORP to labels, certainly not with any consistency; this is generally only done by editors interested in corporations who are asked to weigh in on labels. I've noted before that it makes no sense to ignore WP:MUSIC, which does mention labels, when determining label notability, and I've also argued that it makes much more sense to consult music experts rather than business experts to determine encyclopedic merit in this realm. I guess you all can vote your conscience on that one. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki Project music was copied on those, at least in my last discussion. The general notability guidelines recognize subject specific notability standards, such as those for geographical places, professors and bands/ensembles. The key distinction is that your novel interpretation to apply bands/ensembles (NBAND) to record labels is not recognized and scribed into guidelines with broad consensus. I suggested you RfC this but I see you didn't follow thorugh. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a novel interpretation; WP:MUSIC, which already has broad consensus, has read that way for many years, and as I have stated before multiple times, it's silly to ignore guidelines written by subject matter experts when discussing that subject matter. The same three people keep having the same argument at every deletion discussion. This is performance for a new audience rather than productive debate. Chubbles (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current consensus is that record labels are a company/organization and falls under WP:NORG, not WP:NMUSIC. This article subject company fails to meet NCORP, therefore, it should be removed from the encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 12 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 Electric Production Car Series. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Electric Production Car Series[edit]

2018–19 Electric Production Car Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Planned season for a racing series that folded before the first race was held, contains no relevant information that cannot be in the series main article. Wild8oar (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not only is this 2018-2019 version a hypothetical, it never had any prior versions nor any versions after that. It doesn't exist. GraziePrego (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming Electric Production Car Series meets notability guidelines (which isn't a given) I think this could be merged there (or just redirect it as there's not much that would need to be taken across). That article effectively says that the season was originally supposed to take place but didn't. I don't have an issue with outright deletion, either. A7V2 (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 5 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! 01:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – Doesn't need a standalone article but very straightforward to just copy the content over to Electric Production Car Series under a heading like "Aborted first season" and call it a day. That being said, ECPCS's article should probably also be deleted, but that is a separate discussion. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – It makes sense to add the provisonal schedule to Electric Production Car Series if that article is kept. Same for the "drivers' club", although presenting them as confirmed drivers is a bit misleading, but that may be a topic for another place. SunflowerYuri (talk) 12:36, 18 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, but needs to be done manually?‎. Per the transclusions, it does not appear that a script close will achieve this. However the consensus is not to keep the text as a standalone nor is there a consensus to delete and not redirect. It appears this can be done editorially, but if not, please ping me. Star Mississippi 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2[edit]

List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is better maintained within Dead Sea Scrolls. Lot of duplicated information in each of these series ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this page is trancluded to List of the Dead Sea Scrolls#Qumran Cave 2 and I don't want to mess up that article. Can someone check this? It could be that the content was copied and pasted which means that a Redirect won't affect that article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, the article text has been copypasted and no longer transcludes to that article, but in doing a thorough check I noticed that it does still transclude to List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts#Qumrun Cave 2. I guess maybe if this series of articles is all redirected to their subsection at List of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we'll have to retransclude the sections back outwards to List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts and any other necessary spots. This can be implemented with labeled section transclusion. Folly Mox (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Folly Mox. That changes things from simple to complex. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 13 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 01:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Dhas[edit]

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

Reviewed under NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No GNG type of coverage in references or even any indication that they are about him. (just have brief mentions) North8000 (talk) 01:08, 12 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. There is a fundamental disagreement over whether WP:NPOL is met and whether it applies to those who are not elected to their positions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mustapha Namadi[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. "presumption of notability" simply means that the page not deleted outright. The policy says that may be deleted if if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. Here I see no significnt coverage: the refs cited are some random events - Altenmann >talk 15:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the governor of each state is elected, the commissioners seem to take the role of appointed civil servants and thus don't meet the qualifying criteria at WP:NPOL. The article also doesn't meet GNG so should be deleted. Willbb234 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goldsztajn. Commissioners are equivalents to state-level cabinet ministers, and as such notable. --Soman (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see some evidence of actual presence or absence of sourcing more broadly, on either side
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JML1148, we only strike votes of socks, not of all editors who currently or temporarily blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks for the heads up. I thought that all blocked users had their !votes struck out, apologies for the mistake. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Echoing Eddie891's request for analysis of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 12 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 23:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killer symbol[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the term "Killer symbol" is only used in this Wikipedia article and in one source that is cited here (in quotes). I can't find anything else that demonstrates sufficient notability. Deauthorized. (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, the term "killer symbol" only appears in one of the cited articles. Otherwise, the articles discuss a few bugs that caused devices to crash. A quick Google search doesn't seem to bring up any sources either -- only information about the Zodiac killer. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These separate bugs don't appear to be treated as a singular concept; the title itself isn't notable under WP:WORDISSUBJECT; and the material would be too trivial to merge anywhere. I found no sources besides passing news coverage. DFlhb (talk) 19:57, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_12&oldid=1181011301"