Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 14	October 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. There is a consensus that the article shouldn't be retained, but per policy, cannot redirect to the draft article. Therefore delete until the draft is 'ready' in which case it can be moved to mainspace. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Joe[edit]

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

Duplicate of declined Draft:Leslie Joe so draftification isn't an option for this new article. There's no indication this businessman is notable. A redirect to Sunrise Soya Foods isn't ideal as it's not clear they meet N:CORP. Star Mississippi 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Star Mississippi 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Draft:Leslie Joe. Duplicate article. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom to Draft:Leslie Joe. Duplicate article, and the subject seemingly fails to meet the WP:GNG anyway due to a lack of secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 02:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is not permissible to redirect mainspace titles to draftspace pages. BD2412 T 01:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: what do you suggest? Some way to combine the two? Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be nothing in the mainspace article that is not already in the draft, so there is nothing to combine. The duplicate content must be deleted. BD2412 T 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like BD2412, I could not understand how it is acceptable for this to be converted to a redirect to draftspace despite that is covered by speedy deletion criteria under R2. And I don't think the nom even suggested redirection of a mainspace article to a draft (Star Mississippi, correct me if I am misintrepreting you.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:43, 22 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 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto Press[edit]

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

Regretfully, I feel that this page does not meet WP:GNG. Upon searching for it, I did not find much coverage of the publishing house outside of it being mentioned as the publisher of a book in a number of different news articles about different books, but I couldn't find much that talked about the publishing house in depth that was not from the publishing house or a piece in the Morning Star where the Morning Star announces it is working with Manifesto Press. If there are any sources that I was unable to find, I'd be more than happy to withdraw upon those being provided. Please ping me in such a comment. TartarTorte 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United Kingdom. TartarTorte 00:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless additional sources are found this doesn't fulfil WP:NORG or GNG requirements for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Morning Star reference makes no mention of Manifesto Press. Rupples (talk) 22:35, 21 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 Red Hot Chili Peppers discography. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Skate Rock[edit]

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

unsourced article about a skate video. notable band, but does not seem to be a notable recording. Mbdfar (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Music, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography: found just one brief mention here and a few directory listings. Far from enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried Gnewspapers for any kind of mentions from the era, nothing found. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography per QuietHere as an ATD. Seems useful since the video is listed there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:49, 23 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. Star Mississippi 11:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steveston-London Secondary School[edit]

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

fails the general notability guideline by miles. sources found in a quick search are trivial mentions ([1] [2] [3]). ltbdl (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. ltbdl (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG, as do pretty much all secondary schools in western countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@necrothesp: prove it. with sources. ltbdl (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~Keep. Grand'mere Eugene has found 10 sources from newspapers.com that, in my assessment, show the subject to meets WP:GNG. As with many other secondary schools in the Richmond School District, they are under-sourced and written poorly. As opposed to deletion, these articles should all be drafted until additional sources are gathered to meet WP:GNG. Sink Cat (talk) 03:25, 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!} 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~Keep. I clipped 10 sources from newspapers.com and listed them on the article's talk page, demonstrating the subject's notability for User:ltbdl. However, the state of the current article is pretty bad, and other editors are welcome to use these sources in a WP:HEY effort. ~~For now, I agree with Sink Cat that the appropriate action is to draftify~~ It does needs a complete overhaul, but the available sources demonstrate it is a notable subject.. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this assessment. I've looked at the other articles in the school district as well (some are full on stubs), and put banners on the ones that needed additional citations or work done. Sink Cat (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because in my admin judgement, draftify doesn't make sense when sourcing (thanks Grand'mere Eugene) has been identified. Please assess those sources to determine whether they're sufficient for the school to remain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:46, 15 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!} 06:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Verger[edit]

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

Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 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, Literature, Film, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG here's a few links from a couple minutes on ProQuest. [4][5][6] (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) —siro χ o 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see... the first source seems okay for use. Second source is more brief, but I think it's more about the portrayal of the character in the movie. Third source mentions the character more in a plot summary. Spinixster (chat!) 07:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Less traction in this AfD so here's a couple more sources to chew on.
1. Few pages of SIGCOV throughout Dissecting Hannibal Lecter: Essays on the Novels of Thomas Harris ed. Benjamin Szumskyj [7]
2. Few paragraphs of SIGCOV in The Silence of the Lambs: Devil's Advocates by Barry Forshaw [8]

—siro χ o 23:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This is not quite the central slam-dunk case as with many of the other characters, but I count sources evaluating the actor's performance of the character as evidence of the notability of the character. BD2412 T 01:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fictional character is notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 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 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!} 20:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Reiss[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sports, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Television, Illinois, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Apparently fails WP:NJOURNALIST. I was able to find two sources that satisfy SIGCOV ([9], [10]) and a few other passing mentions ([11], [12] (paywalled), [13]) but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. Most of the sources I've found are WP:ROUTINE as well. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:44, 21 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 14:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connect (users group)[edit]

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

An organization with its own website as the sole source. Searches did not find any significant coverage of the subject. Was proded in December 2022 but deproded at the last second. Does not seem to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nondescript name makes it hard to search for other sources, but there does not appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of this user group except for sites affiliated with HP. It therefore seems to lack secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 15 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 Chess.com. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torch (chess engine)[edit]

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

There is no independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT, WP:CRYSTAL. Everything that's known about it is what chess.com have made known. And they have every reason to hype it up. It has not participated in any event or competition organised by a neutral organiser. It has not been released to the public. It has not been reviewed by independent reviewers. We can not have an article on a commercial product simply parrot company claims from start to finish. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is promotional with no independent sources. Perhaps it would make sense to redirect to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com ? Hmee2 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE It was covered by dot esports as I pointed out earlier even if they do not make any new claim about it. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article on Stockfish, Dragon and LC0 and it would be extremely strange not to have an article on an engine as if not more stronger than them. There is also an article about AlphaZero even though it wasn't released to the public or tested by neutral parties and only things known about it was what Google made known. Lastly, it has been participating at Computer Chess Championship for months now. (I know thats run by Chess.com). I think that maybe this article needs to be reworked but it certainly should exist. Jack234567 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I) There are lots of excellent chess engines like Ethereal, Rubi, Stoofvlees and Igel that, in contrast to Torch, have been around for years without entries on Wikipedia. II) Chess.com has recently created short-lived engine Mittens_(chess_engine) that got an entry on Wikipedia. III) All evaluations are strongly biased as only chess.com is currently allowed to evaluate Torch. Competitors like TCEC don't. This causes misleading results as for example the second best engine LCZero strongly depends, in contrast to Torch, on the GPU provided. <Sukram>

@Sukram Leela is no longer the "second best engine". She has been surpassed by Torch, as shown by the last 2 events at Computer Chess Championship. It would be strange not to have an article on an engine stronger than LC0, given that LC0 itself has such a detailed article.

Furthermore, you mention TCEC, but TCEC has a extremely strong GPU compared to CPU, which inflates Leela's performance.

Lastly, none of the "excellent chess engines" you refer to has reached Lc0's strength unlike Torch. <Jack234567> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack234567 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack234567 I) Leela has "such a detailed article" because Leela was unique in and is well known for that it was the first publicly available engine with a deep neural network. And not because its play strength was close to the very best engine. As hard as it sounds, on an encyclopedia play strength on its own is usually never sufficient to warrant an entry. Instead, there are several engine rating lists like the CCRL, CEGT and FGRL which track and document play strength over time. II) Who defines what is an "extremely strong GPU compared to CPU"? Surely not the maker of Torch in order to claim its engine was better. And what would be the objective measurements here? The price to purchase, the price to rent, the energy consumption, the chip dimension? <Sukram>

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mittens got an entry because of its social media impact. Torch seems to be very high level and certainly has accomplished engine programmers, but I would be more supportive of the article if Torch can prove itself in independent competitions like TCEC. Wqwt (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the Torch authors in the TCEC chat, there are no plans for Torch to ever participate in TCEC. (And Mittens was just a short-lived advertising campaign, which while it had lots of media coverage during a few weeks, it's completely forgotten afterwards, then there was Duck chess and then Spell chess. I'm actually surprised that Mittens has a wikipedia entry).

That being said, while I don't think that Torch meets the requirements for a wikipedia article at the current state, I expect that in future it will be part of chess.com offering (online game analisys or something like that) which will make it elegible, i.e. it won't be as short-lived as Mittens. Mooskagh (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com will indeed offer Torch (and a Torch "lite" version) in their analysis board very soon. They haven't officially announcend it yet, but some small amount of users have been able to use it for a few days now. Desha123456 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please remember to sign your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not enough coverage from reliable, independent sources exist to pass WP:GNG. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 12:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chess.com as an WP:ATDM. The Dot Esports article is a RS and enough to justify some content on Wikipedia, just not its own page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Torch is currently being tested by SPCC and CCRL, both of which are independent of chess.com. Jack234567 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have editors arguing for Keep, Merging and Deletion. We could use a few more editors participating in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another update - It seems that there is a consensus towards merging into chess.com, I won't argue with that but want to just point out that the engine is now available for free public use. Jack234567 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chess.com: Secondary sources seem to be either listings, no sigcov, or forum posts. There's only one article that could contribute to notability. Doesn't seem suitable for a standalone article, at least until it achieves more coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:54, 22 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. This is mainly due to a lack of participation, and there cannot be a fourth relist. Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Devotchkas[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines in its current state. A google search couldn't find much else of use. Biggest contributor (and I suspect other substantial editors) have a WP:COI - [14]. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 15:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 15:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article seem to be sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a source assess table. See below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.laweekly.com/cy-fest-brings-the-punks-out-to-play/		~ Alternative news site	Only one mention	✘ No
https://www.accum.se/~samhain/summerofhate/devotchkas.html	? Permanent dead link	? Permanent dead link	? Permanent dead link	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200113052743/http://www.punkoiuk.co.uk/interviews/devoc.htm	It is an interview	Doesn't meet wikipedia standards		✘ No
https://www.rarepeace.com/post/20-important-female-led-rock-bands-you-should-know		Doesn't meet wikipedia standards		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

––– GMH MELBOURNE 00:26, 9 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!} 21:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could do with some work, and punk by nature is not exactly the easiest thing to find durable references for, but I'll have a go. Here's a couple for starters. — Jon (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hefflon, Scott (29 March 2002). "Review: Devotchkas – Live Fast...Die Young". Lollipop Magazine. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
- "Line Up 2024: Early Confirmations". Rebellion Festivals. Retrieved 20 October 2023.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aviareps[edit]

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

No evidence that this company is notable. Sources are primary or routine coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~●Keep-~~ ~~https://www.visitorlando.com/media/press-releases/post/visit-orlando-names-aviareps-for-international-global-trade-representation/ PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360:, surely a press release is both a primary souce and routine coverage? Jdcooper (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are many news articles focusing on this company, I provided the link to one of the more reliable sites, i will list the other links in the article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a brochure to advertise the company. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a company of this size is generally notable in my opinion. There are some paid industry reports on it https://digitgaps.com/report-store/aviareps-ag-company-profile-financial-and-strategic-swot-analysis-mergers-and-acquisitions-partnerships-and-investments-news-key-profiles-and-competitors-report/, https://www.creditsafe.com/business-index/en-us/company/aviareps-ag-de00830355. A lot of business deal articles too, although some might be press releases. - Indefensible (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- Although this company evidently is large & has many partners, the only coverage we can find is Routine Coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of press releases and 'soft' interviews with management and connected parties. Haven't seen much independent comment/evaluation of the company, so don't think there's sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. The first source listed by User:Indefensible may help towards notability. Don't see how the second source, a credit report does. This in the article may also help [15], none of the other references IMO do. Needs more independent coverage to pass WP:ORGIND. Rupples (talk) 23:36, 21 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!} 20:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EIN Presswire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources in article are either primary, not independent or provide no significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Washington, D.C.. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:CORP, as I can't find a single secondary source on the company. It's admittedly difficult searching for independent coverage of a PR firm, since blasting their name all over online is how they earn a living. Closest I came was an interview with a company VP, labelled as sponsored content in PR Week. Wikishovel (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article describes a PR company going about its business, without indicating encyclopaedic notability, nor are my searches finding better. Although the firm's service is included in some comparative reviews (e.g. the Fit Small Business item referenced in the article), I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. (Note that there has also been some discussion on the article author's Talk page during this AfD.) AllyD (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyMap.dk[edit]

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

I did a bit of searching and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After a short time as a site in its own right, this seems to have become simply a redirect to www.stateofgreen.com (a company portal rebrand of Climate Consortium Denmark) over 10 years ago, and then not even that. I am not seeing evidence that it attained WP:NWEB / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Haines[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this person meets the notability guidelines for professors. For a start, all appointments listed seem of local or regional interest only, no prestigious positions in Wikipedia terms are listed, and comparison of her Google Scholar results with the archived list of her research publications doesn't show any heavily cited work. Graham87 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: I'm currently WP:TBAN from BLPs so it would be inappropriate for me to comment in this discussion, but I am aware of it. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but pending based on whether "New Zealand Federation of Film Societies" is a significant enough organization that Presidency is considered an acknowledgement of significant reputation in the field. The TEU meritorious service award is not sufficient in itself (Life Membership would definitely be, and the TEU Excellence Award might be, but the meritorious service award is for supporting staff at the branch level). On the other hand, not harming the encyclopedia and not overtly promotional, and in an area that we have systemic bias problems against (women in film), but there's just not enough here yet to override the WP:PROF or GNG guidelines against keeping. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be leaning towards no regarding the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies, per the description on its "about" page and the fact that its only other mentions on Wikipedia are in the article about the [[New Zealand International Film Festival, the Film society page, and the page about the playwright Campbell Smith, whose notability seems to rest on other things. Graham87 (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of notability here. Certainly no pass of WP:PROF and we have no evidence of the kind of sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 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 News5#TV5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News5 Alerts[edit]

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

Disputed BLAR: non notable television show. No sources to fulfil GNG were found during a search. Restoration of redirect would naturally be supported. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to News5#TV5 As said many times before, two-minute news update segments (especially for these Filipino newsorgs that portion of the TV project seems to think that every breath from a newsreader with ads sandwiching them is notable) are not enough for an article. They're news briefs...emphasis on brief. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV5 (Philippine TV network) per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why move it to a list of programming when it's a part of the news op? Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to News5#TV5. - Indefensible (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between two different Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to News5#TV5 This is the better and more topically pertinent target. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to News5 § TV5 per virtually everyone else. News brief segments aren't really "shows", per se, and are not nearly as likely to even have the potential for notability as a full-length news program would, never mind actually meeting GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 15 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!} 20:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TrashCon[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about waste segregation technology that is commonplace throughout Europe and the US and I suspect many other countries. Nothing here that suggests any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and possibly written in a promotional tone. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page creator and primary contributor to the article have been CU-blocked as socks. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” This article does not meet any of these criteria.Topjur01 (talk) 16:52, 21 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 06:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (rhetorical device)[edit]

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

Uncited for 15 years and probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 15 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 06:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shogakukan Progressive Japanese–English Dictionary[edit]

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

Nothing in the article says why this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Japan. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 15 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 06:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity priority[edit]

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

Not sure this is notable as it seems to be from just one manufacturer Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 15 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. Daniel (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Fighters R-1[edit]

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

If this is notable why has it remained unsourced for 15 years? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a Japan-only release, there may be some Japanese reviews/sources, though they may be hard to find online now. I will note that on the Japanese Wikipedia, this game actually does not have its own article, and it is just covered as part of the article on the KoF franchise. If no sources can be found, this should at least be redirected to List of The King of Fighters video games rather than deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has reviews from Pocket Magazine and Video Games magazine, and some other reviews that may not be reliable. However, it also got a blurb in Retro Gamer and a full review in Fun Generation. Per WP:NEXIST it appears fully notable, sources currently in the article are irrelevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ look to be enough to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep per sources given above. I'm not entirely convinced of their reliability, but it seems reasonable to think that offline/non-English sources do exist. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

striking out weak, multiple refideas present on talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:15, 22 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. A close call, but after several relists, consensus has emerged that it doesn't seem possible to write an article on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Averasboro Township, Harnett County, North Carolina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Additionally I would argue that while this nominally passes WP:NGEO as a "Populated, legally recognized place" it substantively fails it as it is functionally similar to an "area in an irrigation district", as townships in NC have been politcally defunct (though technically legally extant) since 1880. We might as well be having articles on rural fire districts or polling precincts, these are not like the self-governing entities of the same name in the northern US but administrative divisions which counties use or ignore at their pleasure. This article has been unsourced for 16 years for a reason. I can find some evidence the boundaries have been used to inform the drawing of a special lodging/tourism tax district ([16][17]) and use in raw stats collections (since the US census collects population figures on townships) but no significant coverage of any kind. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the nominator mentions, "... the boundaries have been used to inform the drawing of a special lodging/tourism tax district ([18][19]) and use in raw stats collections (since the US census collects population figures on townships) ..." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So are local tax districts notable? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of townships in Harnett County, North Carolina or the like. In Delaware we have a similar situation, where the subdivisions of the counties ("hundreds") have not been meaningful since the late 19th Century or thereabouts. However, they were widely used as geographical designations until the 20th century, and probably have meaningful, substantial early histories. Given the much greater number of townships presumably present in North Carolina, I'm doubtful adequate material exists for an article on all of them; redirect to a list and they can be broken out as sufficient information is found. Choess (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harnett_County,_North_Carolina#Townships. Townships are functionally irrelevant in NC, stripped of their governments in 1877, just 9 years after creation [20]; most all articles in List of townships in North Carolina (which has populations that may be added to the list in the county article) should also be redirected unless there is more substantive content than statistics regarding meaningless lines. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/averasboro-town-of/, https://www.carolana.com/NC/Towns/Averysboro_NC.html, https://censusreporter.org/profiles/06000US3708590104-averasboro-township-harnett-county-nc/, http://gis.harnett.org/mapgallery/pdf/Townships_Large.pdf. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360 To be clear, the first two links here are about a town of Averasboro, not the township. This is mentioned in the article as Averasboro being the site of the Battle of Averasborough. I would support creation of an Averasboro, North Carolina article and redirection of this one. Unclear what the map links are suppose to prove...yes the township technically has borders and statistics, but that doesn't mean they have practical significance or that it's a notable entity that needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 18:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, Carolana.com is a blog. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just "increase article count" crap, and I don't understand why people are fighting so hard against the apparent reality that these political divisions are long obsolete and were made meaningless shortly after their creation. The most we need is the list and a map for each county; a redirect is actually a nuisance because it distracts from the actual town in searching. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nom, Reywas, and Mangoe. This is only a "place" by virtue of a long-defunct and short-lived statistical designation. We have zero sources that suggest it could be expanded to anything beyond some coordinates and infobox parameters. Good grief.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 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!} 05:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of townships in North Carolina for now, as there is more there than in Harnett County, North Carolina#Townships. If this township had its own government in the 19th century there could be an article about that, but there are currently no references. Peter James (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Averasboro, North Carolina was created yesterday, I stumbled across it via Category:All uncategorized pages and began editing, then stumbled across this deletion discussion. Gjs238 (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Averasboro, North Carolina covers both the township and the former town, the reson being the history of the township links to the former town. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Kernville (former town), California as a model, I am considering moving the article to Averasboro (former town), North Carolina and opening the article with that section and making the current opening the secondary section. I suspect that is more in line with what Reywas92 envisioned when he/she said "I would support creation of an Averasboro, North Carolina article and redirection of this one." Gjs238 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would the other 12 townships in Harnett County, North Carolina be deleted as well? Category:Townships in Harnett County, North Carolina Gjs238 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes , I can't find SIGCOV on any of them. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Delete - townships are not "a thing" in North Carolina since the 19th century. Here's the current version of the Constitution of North Carolina as amended:
- https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Constitution/NCConstitution.html
  - Section 24 mentions townships in passing but does not describe their role - just that the Legislature can rename them and can draw new lines. That's it - there are no powers granted and no township governments authorized. There are no other mentions of townships. They are vestigial from the 1868 NC constitution (which has since been replaced in its entirety with a different constitution). See List of townships in North Carolina#History.

9 out of 10 North Carolinians probably don't know townships even exist.

NC has 100 counties. It has 1035 townships. Do we really need 1035 articles on these useless things? Who would put them on their watchlist and maintain them against vandalism and errant robots?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

many townships have significant roles in history, besides this discussion is just for the townships in Harnett County. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, can you show some reliable sources that any of these Harnett County townships have anything historically important about them prior to 1880? Thanks!

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that(i don't have time t the moment) what we should do is merge the townships to their respective towns. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it’s probably infeasible to merge NC townships to NC towns. NC cities and towns have grown over 150-200 years such that city lines cut across township lines and vice versa. There’s no relationship that I’ve seen other than for one township overlapping with the original county seat. Usually when townships were drawn, there was just one municipality. Now there may be 5-10 in some counties. Some municipalities such as Kannapolis and Locust spread across 2 counties. These townships lines have little connection to contemporary geographic reality. Call some North Carolinians if you know any. Or raise the question at the NC Wikipedia (that’s probably easier).

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with A.B.. To put a finer point on it, the townships were devised as divisions of counties, not as provincial outskirts of municipalities. Some were also drawn to encompass areas that had no towns and still have no towns (there is no "town of Sixpound" in Warren County's Sixpound Township), because many counties were and still are very rural places. Your merge suggestion seems to confuse these places' purpose at their inception. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the Townships & Towns that I feel should be merged:


Township	Respective Town/Community
Averasboro Township	Averasboro(Allready Merged)
Anderson Creek Township	Anderson Creek, NC
Barbecue Township	Barbecue, NC
Johnsonville Township	Johnsonville, NC
Lillington Township	Lillington, North Carolina

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it would make more sense to merge the townships to the parent county article. I would stress two that there is zero inherent legal relationship between a municipality and a township. This is not the Northeast US. Selectively merging townships to community articles simply because they share a name seems a little arbitrary. And what exactly is there to merge? "Here is a bigger place which is not the place you are reading about, though the place you are reading about happens to fall inside of it. Here is how big it is and how many people it had in the 2010 census." We don't merge articles on non-notable political constituencies or fire districts downwards into the communities that fall within them simply because the larger districts exist. And that is why !votes are leading toward redirect and delete. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:23, 11 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!} 21:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a ridiculous but natural result of the "legal recognition" requirement in GEOLAND - we have to play at being lawyers (and not just any lawyer: 19th century North Carolina lawyers) to work out what the status these places had, which is definitely not notable in any other sense or under any other standard, means in terms of notability on Wikipedia. There is nothing to say about these places, most people in them don't know what they are. GEOLAND was only ever supposed to give a presumption of notability, and in this case the presumption has been decisively rebutted by simply referring to the total lack of coverage for them. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumption of notability is not borne out by sources that exist. Fails GNG (sources above are not reliable nor establish notability for our purposes.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:16, 23 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 YRF Spy Universe. Daniel (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe character)[edit]

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

No out-of-universe notability. I note that this character has the same name as the film Pathaan within the YRF Spy Universe, which makes it very hard to locate anything that might be about the titular character. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This is an article about a fictional character but this article is notable.TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to the relevant media. Just a plot summary. Fails GNG. I note a single sentence saying he gained a cult following, but it does not seem to meet SIGCOV nor is very reliable IMHO. But the claim can be merged to the relevant article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional character. Xegma(talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to YRF Spy Universe: Pinkvilla is considered by WP:ICTF to be a questionable source, no good coverage that focuses on the character. Ravensfire (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YRF Spy Universe per Ravensfire as an ATD. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but a redirect seems entirely plausible. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:46, 23 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reformed Theological Seminary people[edit]

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

No citations since May 2023, and not clear that this will be notable enough by itself, could consider merge into the main article OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: This list is lengthy enough that it would make the main article unwieldy, and it corresponds to Wikipedia treatment for similarly lengthy lists from other religious institutions of tertiary education. (See List of General Theological Seminary people, List of Virginia Theological Seminary people, List of Columbia Theological Seminary people, List of Fuller Theological Seminary people, List of Westminster Theological Seminary people, List of St. John's Seminary (California) people, List of New Brunswick Theological Seminary people.) I'm willing to work on adding citations, but per WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE, let's keep and allow time for improvements (unless editorial consensus is also to delete/merge the other list pages cited above, but they have not been nominated). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the article gets more citations, I feel like it could be important enough to merit its own article. It could use a bit of polishing, but the article itself has its place here. ❤History Theorist❤ 06:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens1971. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List articles are (like categories) largely a means of navigation. As such they do not need references: the references will appear in the listed articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 22 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 YRF Spy Universe. ✗plicit 14:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim (YRF Spy Universe)[edit]

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

No out-of-universe notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant media. Just a plot summary. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional character after success of the film. Xegma(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to YRF Spy Universe: Pinkvilla is considered by WP:ICTF to be a questionable source, remaining sources don't show good coverage that focuses on the character Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ravensfire. Sources aren't adequate for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:26, 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 ‎ delete. The main argument for deletion is the paucity, and lack of reliability of sourcing. The main argument presented for keeping is based on the WP:GEONATURAL section of the WP:NGEO notability guideline, which I will cite below:

"Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."

The text of the GEONATURAL section uses the phrase "often notable", not "always notable" or even "usually notable". Furthermore, it requires that there be "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". If the sourcing for a separate article is insufficient, coverage in a larger article, such as the forest the lake is located in, may have merit.

Having looked at the article, and the discussion of the sources I find that the "delete" side have convincingly argued that the sourcing is insufficient. Even with the sourcing provided, the article ends up being very short, with few prospects of growing beyond stub size. I have considered merging, but I find the article content dubious, even if sourced. For example the claim that the lake is an "extension Second Lake separated by a peninsula and a short section of narrows" doesn't align well with the maps of the area (where "Fourth Lake" but not "Second Lake" is mapped, and the location of the purported peninsula is unclear). There is also a sentence about the fish in the lake, but these seem to be widespread species in the area in general, nothing particular to this lake at all. As such, I cannot see much worth merging.

In sum, the text of GEONATURAL does not support inclusion of this article, making the paucity of the sourcing a decisive argument for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Lake (Fulton County, New York)[edit]

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

Only Two Sentences, Only 3 Sources(GNIS is unreliable, Source 2 Does Not Exist, Source 3 I can't access. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and New York. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor geographic feature with no coverage by any RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:GEOLAND states that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This has a couple paragraphs on Third Lake on pages 185-186. This, although not very much, gives some information about Third lake beyond statistics. This is a study conducted partially in the Third Lake, which could be discussed in the article. It's thin, but I think these three sources are enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the three sources when the article was nominated, GNIS sometimes is unreliable for feature types but this is confirmed as a lake by other sources, an archived version of the second source has been found, there is no requirement for sources to be available online, and more sources have been found. Peter James (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNGEO requires this meet GNG, I am not seeing any sources in the article, above or in BEFORE that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 8 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!} 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these sources pass WP:GNG and a quick search does seem to find anything SIGCOV about this lake. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the coverage is significant, particularly source 2 currently in the article and the Google Books reference; it's just spread throughout several sections. An article combining this with other lakes in the area could be more useful, but this is better than nothing and there's no reason to delete. WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Peter James (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  GNIS does not pass WP:GNG as it is a database entry from an unreliable system to catalogue the name and location of places, which is not significant coverage, source 2 does pass WP:SIGCOV but I am unsure whether it would be independent, and source 3 is inaccessible to almost any reader/viewer of the article, which means I can't figure it out, but just based of the title of the book and where it's sourced, I'm going to presume that it is a passing mention of what fish are in said lake and how to access it. With that being said, one source debateably passes GNG and therefore, should be deleted. And yes, I did WP:BEFORE. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNIS is clearly not significant coverage but the second source already in the article and some of the others identified in the AFD are; articles survive AFD with a similar amount of coverage or less. Also there's an obvious merge target and another that could potentially be an article. The content meets policy requirements and the article arguably meets guideline requirements and there's so much in Wikipedia that could be deleted according to policy; deletion (of content or articles) would be an improvement in some cases but not here. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you like to show me the book in the article and upload it, I'd be happy to look at it. Still, from my standpoint, I can only evaluate one source, which isn't even independent coverage since it is probably required to survey said lake by the state government. Not sure what else there is to do. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 18:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about the book, there are the other sources mentioned here but not already in the article. And for a feature such as a lake it would make no sense to exclude government published sources from notability of a government owned lake but say the same sources contribute to the notability of one that is privately owned. They have been accepted for a long time as a main source for writing about geographical features, populated places and districts in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias before Wikipedia existed. Independent sources is more about ensuring NPOV and using coverage that is "from a disinterested perspective" - and dec.ny.gov is probably more neutral here than most travel guides. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment-Source 1 - GNIS - Unreliable & Source 2 - is about Ferris Lake Wild Forest PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I romoved source 2 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEONATURAL. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If all you can write about is "it exists" then it's about as notable as a local bus stop, and we shouldn't have an article about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ of the slightly weak variety, but keep nonetheless. Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleri Morris[edit]

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

No indication of notability; fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 due to lack of in-depth sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. –dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify some promising articles in the Illawarra Mercury, not quite at GNG level yet but an active AFLW player who should accumulate more coverage as her career progresses. – Teratix ₵ 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has two articles about her in the Illawarra Mercury, as well as a few profiles. Also an active player who is playing well and will generate more coverage for sure. --SuperJew (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are in-depth about her exclusively, so I'm not sure how she fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. as she clearly has that. --SuperJew (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see much coverage in sources apart from the two mentioned above, but since they both directly address the subject, I think they're enough to satisfy relevant notability guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Contains no secondary and independent sources. ––– GMH Melbourne 11:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false, you might dispute whether the sources are sufficient to clear GNG but to assert no such sources are present is wrong. – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is my bad, because a couple of the sources led to dead links and paywalls, I brushed over them. ––– GMH Melbourne 23:16, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Montano[edit]

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

No major roles, unable to find significant coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An earlier version [21] has more details (incl. filmography), but the credits appear to be mainly bit parts. Some coverage for his latest play - "Small" [22][23]. Not sure if that's enough though.-KH-1 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:08, 15 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, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David McGuinness[edit]

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

Aside from the fact this page appears to have been created by someone with a connection to the subject (User:Mcguinnessno1), this is a former local councillor whose position does not meet WP:NPOL and the coverage he has received is entirely WP:MILL, not satisfying WP:GNG in the slightest. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A person with a similar name appears to have been murdered, coverage is all about that individual. Nothing for this person, does not appear to meet notability for politicians. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only notable for holding a position on the local level. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. FatCat96 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable former local politician, fails WP:NPOL, Spleodrach (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. Frankly kinda surprised that this article was accepted/promoted through AfC process in the first place. The COI/SPA/PROMO overtones, associated with the article's creation, do very little to help. Guliolopez (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 21 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, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Memorandum between the Chinese Communist Party and the Indian National Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS.

Merely an allegation launched by the opposition party of India against another party without any basis.

The creator of this article was also blocked years ago. Capitals00 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed under a different name at this AfD:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 INC-CCP MoU

The decision was “keep”

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Appears to be a debunked allegation from a political party against another political party.[24] desmay (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 INC-CCP MoU participants: Roci xu (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), and TimothyBlue (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Desmay. Clear-cut WP:SOAPBOX. CharlesWain (talk) 16:37, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Reilly[edit]

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

all of the sources are either primary, TikTok, press releases, and blogs. The few sources left I am not sure if they are reliable. There is no substantial coverage from reliable sources about this topic. Interestingly, there is more coverage about a different Katherine Reilly who died on 4 Feb 2023 FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is not about the amount of coverage another person of the same name has. In this case most of the sources are in Greek by legitimate universities and news sources. As a speaker of Greek I can attest to that. After checking the links as regards bibliography, academic career and activism, all check out fine. Besides, she is a public figure in Greece with an International following. Wikiben37 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find book reviews for this individual, only links to download the various books. None of the links used appear green per sourcebot, rest are social media and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In her interviews found in the links, she has stated that due to her being trans, the publishers concealed her true name to promote sales. Fortunately, she has posted certificates of proof of authoring on her sight, given to her by the publishers thmeselves. https://katherinereilly.blog/authoring/ Wikiben37 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a huge vistory for the lgbtqi community as she stood up for what was right and received the certifications of authoring. She even speaks about it in the interview links added. Wikiben37 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She appears to be a prolific children's book author but for WP:AUTHOR we need published book reviews, not just published books. Nothing else in the article stands out as something that would automatically meet our notability standards. If the many low-quality sources listed include some that have in-depth content about Reilly, are independent of her, and reliably published (as would be needed for GNG), it is not clear to me which ones those might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Wikiben37 removed their own comment here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
You can be blocked indefinitely for threatening editors, so zipped it please FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, even vague and laughable threats of invoking "international law" are legal threats, are forbidden on Wikipedia, and are likely to subject those making such threats to an instant block unless the threat is withdrawn and repudiated. User:Wikiben37, this means you need to withdraw the threat or you are likely to be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Until August 7 when they requested its deletion, Wikiben37 had a user page declaring a COI with the subject of this AfD. However, since the deletion of this user page, Wikiben37 has been participating here without declaring a conflict of interest, in apparent violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein True. Furthermore, the user who created the article has without doubt WP:COI with the subject; cf. their global edits, esp. at Commons. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Tehonk (talk) 20:50, 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 no consensus‎. Even though I find many of the "delete" !votes weak on policy grounds, I think it is quite evident that there is no consensus for either keeping or deleting the article. Quite a few editors argue for merge, but the targets vary. Similarly, several editors argue that the article should be renamed, but again there's not enough support for any one of the proposed alternatives. There is no particular trend to any consensus among the later !votes either. I therefore close this as "no consensus". Possible renaming or merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide against Palestinians[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article falls short of Wikipedia's criteria for neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability. It relies on a combination of highly fringe sources and unsubstantiated public opinion slogans, resulting in a piece that resembles content from Hamas' propaganda. The theory presented does not warrant more than a brief mention in an article covering Palestinian perspectives on Israel, certainly not an entire dedicated entry. Its presence on Wikipedia compromises the project's reliability and credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladkarmel (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Criticism of Israel. This isn't a mainstream opinion, and while it probably passes WP:GNG it doesn't warrant a standalone article under WP:PAGEDECIDE; it is better to cover it within an existing article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree As another user on the talk page has already said, "This is no different than the page for Holodomor genocide question, merely showing that there is a debate and varying views on the topic. Deleting this article would come across as hiding the fact that many do characterize the conflict as genocide, as the sources show. At most, rename the article." FF toho (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FF toho, there's big difference here. There is an article on Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question presents the scholarly debate about the subject. Genocide against Palestinians is just the an analog to the latter, untethered to widely-accepted-as-fact analog to the former. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep and rename. I agree with this point. Should the article be renamed to something like Allegations of genocide against Palestinians or Palestinian genocide question/allegations? -- GnocchiFan (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the former title is better. I would also like to say that potentially changing the formatting of the article to something similar to Holodomor genocide question would also be beneficial (which each scholar as its own section). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion, the current name lacks of neutrality and takes a stand that the 'genocide' is confirmed, and there isn't such a consensus. dov (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A restructuring and naming discussion was already underway on the talk page before this AfD was launched. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article about a notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article breaches codes of neutrality and is misinforming. Also I fear the article may be politically motivated (in connection with the Hamas-Israel war). Therefore, I concur that this article ought to be deleted. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this AFD may be politically motivated too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hint is in the "resembles content from Hamas' propaganda". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is Deadlyops (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a widely sourced topic. A quick search in google books and google scholar provides clear support.

No comment on what is the correct name at this point. Note the Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State as examples situations of a similar scale and accompanied by expulsions etc. Also consider the overlap with Ongoing Nakba.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term 'Genocide against Palestinians' doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and WP:Fringe. The view that Israel has comitted Genocide is held by a tiny segment of scholars, and thus should be presented as such in the context of majority opinion. To ensure balanced discussion, topics like these could be more appropriately covered in existing broad articles like Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I'd like to note that renaming to 'Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians' would not solve this problem as it would still put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the fringe theories.
- Furthermore, the article violates the WP:FRINGELEVEL policy by failing to provide reliable sources that cover the level of acceptance of the topic. According to that policy, for articles that delve into contentious or contested theories it's essential to cite credible sources that indicate the level of acceptance these ideas have within the pertinent scholarly community. If reliable sources cannot be found to provide information on an idea's level of scholarly acceptance, the assumption should be that the idea lacks academic consideration or endorsement. Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are massively misreading that guideline. Sure, it says it would be nice to show the level of acceptance of the idea. And actually, the page does include at least one poll, FWIW. But that's not the point. You seem to taking a guideline saying something would be nice as implying that if you don't have it, you suddenly have a reason for deletion. In fact, that guideline has nothing to do with notability or deletion in any way at all. Also, on the contrary to your concluding statement above, the guideline actually says the opposite: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." As it stands, you have provided no reliable sources suggesting that the characterizations on this page are in any way "fringe", as you claim. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After reading the article thoroughly it does seem like it doesn't follow WP:NPOV and in it's current form represents a narrative rather than coherent information. I am not against merging it into Criticism of Israel while deleting all of the non-RS backed up information. dov (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable topic as evidenced by the sources cited in the first version of the article. It's irrelevant for notability how popular a view it is since the sources exist. In fact if the perspective is a fringe one as some are arguing, then it would suggest that merging is not a good solution because most of the article content would be wp:undue in other articles. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK. Loksmythe (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic, article whose topic is a POV. People are reacting emotionally to the title without reading the article. This meets all the requirements of an article, it has sustained in-depth coverage in a number of reliable sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 onwards, news and analysis from within a few days, all focused on this as a topic. The argument to delete is an appeal to emotion and simply attempts to wave away the reliable sources with claims of it being "Hamas propaganda". Sorry, but this is not published by Hamas University Press, it is published by Routledge. Ditto for this or any of the other sources on that page. You cant just say you dislike what the sources say so delete them. nableezy - 14:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this is somehow "fringe" simply does not square with our guideline. Something discussed by reliable sources is not fringe. Notable commentators discussing a topic is not fringe. The sources cited in the article are all reliable. The idea that this is fringe is a dishonest argument that is playing on the hope that people will not actually look at what is cited. As far as Levivich's argument that the occupation is the same topic, that is absolutely false, and the sources do not simply say the occupation is leading to this. nableezy - 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question or something similar. While some may deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide, this is still a notable and complex topic that deserves its own article. NPOV issues can be fixed without deleting the whole page. This is not a BLP, nobody is being defamed by this info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That an article has a popular or an unpopular topic is not, in and of itself, a reason to keep or to delete an article. In assessing this we must set aside that fact that this is a current and very difficult issue, not least for those caught up in the fallout, Instead we must analyse the neutrality, the notability, and the verification.
A merge discussion has already started. Running this in parallel with a deletion discussion complicates discussions. I would prefer to set that aside until the AFD is concluded, unless sufficient opinions to merge are reflected in the eventual close.
*The topic is notable, whether one likes or dislikes, agrees or dosagrees with the subject matter
*The notability is verified with significant coverage in independent and relaibel sources
*the article is neutral, balanced
That leads me to the conclusion that there is no possible rationale for deletion, and every possible rationale for retention. However we must then consider whether it should exist as a stand alone article, or whether to incorporate in within the body of another.
My view is that is warrants a stand alone article. This is a sufficiently distinct topic that it should be given its own article, referred to from relevant other articles, geographic and political, from topics which will benefit from that referral. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge WP:FRINGE, violates WP:NPOV and simply not evidentiary. Can be retained for discussion as part of a larger topic of attitudes, criticism, and debate around Israeli policies, but does not meet standards for its own page

Mistamystery (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable, but it has issues with POV. I would suggest cleanup rather than deletion. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In adition, this article should be renamed to somthing like Palastinian genocide question or similar. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like not NPOV. Doesn't cite references for the claimed "Genocide". Ovedc (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. The very title suggests that it's a real phenomenon, but this could not be further from the truth. No serious WP:RS source claims that there is a genocide, and the article reads like a WP:SYNTH collection of unrelated information meant to paint a picture with a WP:FRINGE point of view. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is obviously plenty of material here, including input from genocide experts. Nomination doesn't stand up to scrutiny, asserting that it relies on fringe sources when the sourcing is anything but. The nominator also sounds like they didn't read the page, because they seem to think it solely presents Palestinian perspectives, which is self-evidently incorrect. It is highly doubtful that WP:BEFORE was followed either. The arguments related to NPOV also appear to be half-baked. For one, an article not being balanced is not a reason for deletion; it is a reason for improvement. To be deleted purely for being unbalanced it would need to egregiously and irrevocably so, and to this end, none of the delete voters using this argument have actually provided any evidence - not a single source - contradicting the content or outlining how the characterizations referred to on the page are representative of an unreasonable academic position. As to other points, such as whether or not the name of the page is correct - that is a separate discussion that was already ongoing on the talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual scholarly sourcing basis for this topic is frankly huge. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided but a small sample of this in the further reading. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:FRINGELEVEL policy articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. I don't see such a sourced statement in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence provided that the notion is fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is for articles which cover "controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail". Take another look. Marokwitz (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer again to where I note the huge literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read serious academic works on genocide, the treatment of Palestinians is discussed, and its relationship to the concept of genocide is seriously debated. For example, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010) refers to the scholarly debate over whether ethnic cleansing was committed by the Israeli side in the 1948 War (see page 57), and also the debate over the relationship between ethnic cleansing and genocide (pages 45–46) (is ethnic cleansing a type of genocide, or a closely related but distinct phenomena?) I think we have to distinguish (a) issues which respectable scholarship debates but has not yet come to a consensus over, from (b) issues which are beyond the scope of respectable scholarship entirely. What we are talking about here is really (a) not (b), but when we talk about "FRINGE" in the context of Wikipedia, we usually mean (b) instead. This is a debate in mainstream scholarship, not some fringe theory, but at the same time any article needs to present it accurately as a debate without a conclusion, not as anything on which consensus has been reached. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title presents subject as a fact, which it isn’t. Delete or rename to neutral title. Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Subject is fringe. Article could only be acceptable with a complete change of subject, in other words, a different article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: If your own reason for deletion is the name, that should be a reason for a naming discussion. A bad name is not, and never has been, a reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Genocide against Palestinians, Allegations of war crimes against Israel (which, despite its ambiguous title, is about allegations of war crimes by Israel, not war crimes against Israel), Human rights in the State of Palestine, Israel and apartheid, Israeli demolition of Palestinian property, Israeli law in the West Bank settlements, Israeli torture in the occupied territories, Ongoing Nakba, Palestinian enclaves, and portions of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and Racism in Israel, are all articles about the same thing: human rights abuses by Israel against Palestinians. The whole set should be reorganized into something that's less WP:CFORK-y. "Apartheid," "genocide," and "ongoing Nakba" are three characterizations of the same thing: Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The "article tree" should look like this: The parent article to all this is, of course, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Below that should be some parent-type article for human rights abuses, like Human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Below that might be two articles, Human rights violations by Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Human rights violations by Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article about Israel's human rights violations could cover Nakba, the "apartheid" characterization, the "genocide" characterization, and any other WP:DUE characterizations, probably all of which should be in one article rather than split up into individual articles, unless there's a WP:SIZE issue down the line. (The article about Palestinian human rights violations would cover the set of articles largely dealing with Palestinian terrorism in the conflict, e.g. parts of Palestinian political violence, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and so on.)
So it should be merged, but probably not to Criticism of Israel (which is one hell of a WP:COATRACK article; why the hell does Wikipedia have "Criticism of [X]" articles???); rather, the whole topic area should be re-organized into something that makes sense, doesn't duplicate topics or fork them, and is easy for the reader to navigate. Barring a merger, second choice is delete. Genocide against Palestinians shouldn't exist as a stand-alone page, as it WP:CFORKs the articles Ongoing Nakba, Israel and apartheid, and the others I listed above. We have way too many articles about allegations in this topic area, which water down and obfuscate the facts. Readers need easy, understandable access to the facts, the history of the area, rather than to every characterization of the conflict (it's apartheid! it's a bantustan! it's an ongoing Nakba! it's genocide!). That only confuses readers. Is it a genocide? It is it apartheid? Is it an onoging Nakba? Depends on which Wikipedia article you read. That's not how Wikipedia should work. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Levivich's excellent points for several reasons:
1. Overlapping Articles: Having multiple overlapping articles dilutes the impact of each piece and muddles the information landscape. It's inefficient and confusing for readers seeking a comprehensive understanding.
2. Article Hierarchy: Levivich's idea for an article tree offers a structured way to present a complex issue. This hierarchical approach enables a detailed discussion while making navigation more intuitive.
3. Prevention of Content Forking: The WP:CFORK issue is a significant one. Multiple articles on closely related subjects can lead to inconsistencies and make updates cumbersome. Consolidation is a more practical and policy-compliant approach.
4. Focus on Facts Over Characterizations: Articles with titles like "Genocide against Palestinians" can be seen as taking a stance, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. An organized, fact-based structure is more in line with Wikipedia's ethos.
5. User Navigation: Current organization makes it difficult for readers to form a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Levivich’s suggested approach ensures that users have a smoother, more educative experience.
6. Clarity and Consistency: The presence of various characterizations (such as apartheid or genocide, in separate articles undermines Wikipedia's credibility. A unified article structure addresses this issue by presenting a balanced view in a single, authoritative source.
7. Secondary Option of Deletion: If consolidation proves impossible, deletion of redundant articles is a sensible alternative to prevent dissemination of fragmented or conflicting information.
Overall, I think this provides a roadmap for making Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more coherent, navigable, neutral, and in line with our policies and guidelines. Marokwitz (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Levivich. We wouldn't merge Uyghur genocide into Human rights in China, right? Nor would we merge Holodomor genocide question into either Holodomor or Human rights in the Soviet Union right? VR _talk 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uyghur genocide does not fall under Wikipedia:Fringe theories , and there is no Criticism of China or China and apartheid article, despite China being approximately 100 times more populous than Israel Marokwitz (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Levi proposes, Criticism of Israel should be deleted as all Criticism of X articles are inherently POV. VR _talk 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we, at least, agree on one thing. Marokwitz (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Levi, the whole point of this article is (or at least should be) to discuss whether or not there is a genocide of Palestinians. If RS agree this is an unfounded allegation then the first sentence in the lead with "While Israel has been accused of committing a genocide of Palestinians, most scholars believe this is not true." VR _talk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? Take a look a the requirements of WP:FRINGELEVEL Marokwitz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think when it comes to the debate over the "genocide" label specifically, there are actually two aspects to the debate (1) factual debate over what Israel actually has or hasn't done, (2) semantic debate over how words such as "genocide" are to be defined. The question of whether Israel has committed genocide is determined by (1) and (2) in combination. I think the average reader is primarily interested in (1) not (2); but, on the other hand, there is a great deal of scholarly literature from fields such as international law, history and genocide studies which debates (2), both in general and in the specific context of the Israel/Palestine issue. Given that, I think it makes sense to have both a general article(s) focussed on (1), and a more specialist article which focuses more on the scholarly application of issue (2) to this particular topic. I don't think the current article is really focussing on (2), but I see no reason why it could not be evolved in that direction with appropriate attention. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be OK with rename. If the articles were reorganized as I suggest above, I could see (for WP:SIZE reasons) there being a standalone article about the scholarly debate concerning genocide and Palestinians, which I would title something like "Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or, for a different scope, "Genocide and Palestinians." The description of that scholarly debate is laid out well in the comments on this page by SomethingForDeletion, so I won't repeat them, just +1. Levivich (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm still looking at this but the title is definitely a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best next step would probably be to merge this article and the Palestinian one into Allegations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though I think "Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a shorter and better title). Second-best would be merging this article to Allegations of war crimes against Israel or some other existing parent article (even if it's Criticism of Israel). Third-best would be renaming this article to "Allegations of Palestinian genocide" (I don't think any RS calls it the "Palestinian genocide question", unlike the Holodomor genocide question, and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to coin new phrasing, but that's still a better title than the current title). Still opposed to keeping as a stand-alone at the current title. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No internationally accepted definition was proved to be met using credible sources. These are all lies that should be removed. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article. Clearly a notable topic. - Ïvana (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and not NPOV. Atbannett (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atbannett: Sorry, unsourced how and in what possible sense? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed claims, but the article name seems to indicate that it's agreed. It's not. Atbannett (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, your issue is a naming issue, not a content issue then. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article should be deleted. It deals with a FRINGE theory and WP:SYNTH what I mentioned before about sources. Atbannett (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. WP:SOAP also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel; it's openly a child article. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reaction, in its selectivity, further strengthens the case for deletion. For example, the name of the "parent" starts with allegations, while the "child" drops that. The article does not truly expand on what is written in the "parent", only attempts to apply it on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by rehashing the conflict's content in a POV manner, along with long quotes that artificially fluff the article. So, no, this is not a justified WP:SPINOFF (assuming on my part that is what was meant) of a chapter that the respondent added after the fact to a "parent". It is WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel AND the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. WP:SOAP also applies. Or, as others have put it, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which proposed parent does it not expand open? There is infinitely more material here than currently sitting at Criticism of Israel. The rest of your post is a bit drowned in guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that makes it a meaningful expansion. The text is SYNTH, FRINGE, SOAP, POV, fluff, and a rehash of stuff that appears time and again elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced to books by respectable academic publishers such as Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, and Rutgers University Press, and articles in mainstream academic journals such as the Journal of Genocide Research, and the University of Edinburgh's Journal of Holy Land Studies. How are those mainstream academic sources "FRINGE"? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also in academia it is fringe. The common view in and outside academia is that there is a conflict between nations. The topic is fringe enough and the article is weak enough to strongly recommend against keeping it for the reasons listed above. There is no reason to rehash the entire Palestinian Israeli conflict through the prism of what could be described as a conspiracy theory. Since it has been given some attention, I did not say eradicate any mention from WP, so the sources mentioned support my opinion. The fact that already the second person took statements out of context shows once more how weak the case for keeping is. gidonb (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence to support your claim that "Also in academia it is fringe"? The fact that this academic debate is covered at length in books by mainstream academic publishers, and in mainstream academic journals, is clear evidence that it is a mainstream debate not a fringe debate in academia. Do you have any scholarly sources to support your claim that "in academia it is fringe", or is this just an assertion on your part? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything to the best of my acquaintance with this literature and, very importantly, after reading the article, and knowing what it takes to create a valid article on a valid topic. From the debate here it is evident that some people are very passionate about having this article yet the arguments in favor of a keep are very weak. For example, the reasoning of My very best wishes is a total knockout against keeping this article. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine or any related article as a first step in making Levivich's proposal happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the_occupied territories. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question, similar to Holodomor genocide question. There are many sources in the article that are very reliable and academic, and they clearly believe a genocide against Palestinians are taking place. These sources may very well be in the minority and we should definitely give due weight to the contrarian view, ie human rights violations under the occupation don't rise to the level of genocide. (Fwiw I personally don't believe there is a genocide taking pace, these allegations are an exaggeration). But clearly this is a notable, and controversial, topic similar to Israel and apartheid, where we had deletion discussions but decided to keep the article. VR _talk 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a relatively well-sourced article, and I am surprised that we did not have one on this topic until now. I have been hearing and reading allegations of genocide by Israel since my childhood in the 1980s, and I don't see many voices in the Greek press willing to defend Israel. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think keep because it's well-sourced by reliable sources. Keep because more WP:RS will continue to be available re: the Genocide of Palestinians by Israel, in the days and months to come. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing the light of the current conflict; besides being absolutely false given that the Palestinian population was 1.37 million in 1948, and an estimated 5.4 million in the State of Palestine according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Furthermore, when the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control, the Palestinian population has been increasing since 1967. Needless to say (one hopes), genocide results in precipitous decline of population. Additional sources and data here: [25].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefallen (talk • contribs)

Ah yes, the old "people are having babies so they're not being persecuted" trope - I believe I've heard that one in relation to the Uyghur Genocide too - this response is sort of making the case for exactly why the content gap is better filled than left open for the chill breeze of misinformed thought to waft through.Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chefallen: I think one issue here is that there is a difference between how "genocide" is defined colloquially, and how it is defined in international law. The colloquial definition emphasises the idea of mass killing, and so a significant increase in population seems rather decisive counter-evidence to claims of genocide. The international law definition is a lot broader than that, and can potentially include a lot of things which don't involve any killing, and given that much broader definition, a population increase is not decisive counter-evidence to genocide allegations. Genocide scholars disagree among themselves on how to define "genocide", with some preferring a narrow definition closer to the colloquial understanding, others a much broader definition which mirrors the legal one. In any event, what you are presenting here is a really a contribution to the substance of the debate, not an argument why Wikipedia should not cover that debate itself, insofar as that debate is expressed in reliable sources SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename I think the citations demonstrate there is serious academic debate over whether or not Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians. Given that real academic debate, I think it is appropriate to have an article on the debate; I think there are enough sources available on the topic to justify an independent article. However, the current title clearly endorses one side of the debate, and so I think should be renamed to something else, e.g. Palestinian genocide debate, Palestinian genocide question, Palestinian genocide allegations. This is different from other historical situations where there is a clear scholarly consensus that "genocide" is the appropriate label. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian population has only increased since 1948 (interesting "genocide"), this is just a grout of fringe, hyperbolic and extremely biased accusations by radical anti-Israel activists who deprecate the value of words, as usual, just like they did with 'racism', 'fascism', 'apartheid' and, in some cases, even the 'holocaust' itself. Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" with some random writer detailing 100 years of riots, massacres, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, stabbings, car-rammings and shootings, followed by Palestinian and Arab leaders calls to wipe Israel off the map and drown the Jews into the sea. See WP:Advocacy and WP:Competence. Dovidroth (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps check out the reliable sources actually referenced on the page and read those essays yourself. For the point about population increase, SomethingForDeletion responded above. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar, unfortunately this seems to reflect how low-level and histrionic any debate about I-P has become. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims (such as genocide) require exceptional sources, not far-left "experts" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians. It was cringy to read. Trust me, there's no way someone would take that seriously. It makes Wikipedia look comical at best. Dovidroth (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not far-left "experts" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians But historically that has got it back-to-front. The word genocide was coined by Rafael Lemkin–who was a Polish Jew, and a Zionist, who developed such a broad definition in order to capture what he saw as the true breadth of Nazi criminality. Nobody has broadened the definition; rather, it has progressively been narrowed compared to Lemkin's original definition. Lemkin likely would not have agreed with using his very broad definition of "genocide" against his own Zionist cause; but it is simply historically false to suggest that Palestine supporters are responsible for that breadth. Furthermore, when people seek to use narrow definitions of genocide as an argument against Palestinian accusations of genocide against Israel, those narrow definitions may end up also undermining Israeli allegations of genocide by Palestinians–so if the Palestinian side were guilty of "conveniently" broadening the definition, would that not be true of (some of) the countervailing Israeli claims as well? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" Actually, I have created a draft of such an article at Draft:Palestinian genocide of Israelis. I don't think this is the counterargument that you think it is, because if notable allegations are being made, then it is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover them–irrespective of whether the allegations are actually fair or not. I've found a number of notable individuals (Benjamin Netanyahu, Alan Dershowitz, Justus Weiner, Avi Bell, Irwin Cotler, Dan Eldad and Jens David Ohlin) who have made claims of Palestinian genocide against Israelis. Given there are notable individuals on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict claiming that the other side is guilty of genocide, I think Wikipedia ought to cover both sets of claims. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I recently blocked an editor for improper canvassing at this AfD, which included emails to over 40 at least 190 editors across multiple sending accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fagerbakke). If you are participating after being notified of this discussion by an off-wiki communication, please disclose it when contributing to this discussion (see WP:CANVAS). Needless to say, this AfD falls within a designated WP:CTOP. Further CTOP enforcement actions may be forthcoming. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the Yaniv Horon special. Who else is shocked that people would not disclose such a thing? nableezy - 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as per Dovidroth. This article relies on a combination of WP:FRINGE and non-WP:RS sources, including radical leftist op-eds and Iranian officials, to perpetuate a WP:SOAP baseless theory without evidence of alleged Israeli atrocities. If there were an ongoing genocide in the Palestinian territories, where are the alleged extermination camps? Where are the supposed mass massacres of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? In reality, Palestinians in the West Bank experience a higher quality of life compared to the broader Middle East. In Gaza, most Palestinian casualties result from airstrikes against militant radical Islamist organizations, which often use civilians as shields. (Actually, recent events, like the mass massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas solely for being Jewish, align more closely with the term "Genocide"). Deleting this article is vital for maintaining Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and reliability. A brief mention in the "Criticism of Israel" article, adhering to WP:NPOV, would acknowledge the existence of this (conspirative) viewpoint, while making it clear that it is held by the fringes of the scholarly world and radical anti-Israel activists. LUC995 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page literally relies on nothing but WP:RS sources. These repeated claims of fringe are just getting ridiculous and fly in the face of the self-evident body of sourcing present on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*::Yes, because sources like Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and Progressive International are textbook examples for WP:RS. Other sources appear selectively chosen to convey a sense of unanimous scholarly agreement, while in reality, they represent a thin minority in the field. This aligns with what constitutes WP:FRINGE. LUC995 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't cite Jalil Abbas Jilani as a source. It cites a reputable newspaper that quotes Jilani as making the genocide allegation. Do you dispute that Jilani made that allegation?

This is similar to a Holocaust denial article citing a source that might quote David Irving denying the Holocaust. VR _talk 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now created what is essentially a mirror image of this article, Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis, which covers Israeli accusations that Palestinians are guilty of genocide. Personally I don't think it would be consistent to delete this article and keep my new one, although other editors may disagree with me on that. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for deletion; it shouldn't exist either, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - this is where the whole idea of relying on sourcing for notability falls down. Clearly some have reached for extreme language of genocide, which is tough to justify when the population is increasing. I don't see that anything is gained by giving this kind of extreme language credibility on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC:How do you define genocide? The Genocide conventions has "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". It's not that simple of course but notice that it says "in whole or in part". Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several reasons for deletion:

Genocides (e.g. Armenian Genocide) are well-defined events, even though they can span a period of time. Here, we have at least 3 separate events (starting from 1940s) all of which are claimed to be a "genocide against Palestinians". This is like an attempt to include the recent flight of Armenians from Karabakh to page Armenian genocide. Therefore, this page reads like bashing of Israel, a unifying motif of this and some other pages.
Deciding if something was a genocide is a very big deal. Even with regard to something like Holodomor, this is still debated, and we have a separate page Holodomor genocide question. Do we have here a coverage in scholarly sources that would be at least remotely similar to the coverage of Holodomor as genocide? Do we have multiple governments officially admitting this to be a genocide, as for Holodomor? I do not see it.
This page is a POV fork of Allegations of war crimes against Israel. I also agree with other arguments by Levivich. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On point #2, no one is deciding if something was a genocide (or characterized as such). As we do we with everything on Wikipedia, we simply report the material from relevant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the title of this page was "Allegations of genocide...", then indeed, one might collect all sourced allegations of that nature. But it would be more logical to place such claims to page Criticism of Israel I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many politicians, researchers, and organizers describe what is happening to the Palestinians as genocide, and Israel has been explicit in announcing its intentions since its establishment. Increasing birth rates among the population does not mean that genocide should be downplayed or excluded. This argument is completely rejected. Likewise, genocide is not only defined by mass murder, but also by displacement, siege, torture and dehumanization.--Dl.thinker (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. MVBW and Marokwitz put it well. (I proposed a merge into Criticism of Israel, which has another section of allegations, but support a merge into Allegations of war crimes against Israel.)

Per Levivich, the forest of content forks should be refactored into fewer articles; new small forks always risk becoming POV forks and hatracks for fringe claims. Here claims of genocide are strongly tied to other political maneuvering in the region, including to justifications for broader wars; and a trope of anti-semitic conspiracy theories[26][27]. We should avoid defamation even though it is not a BLP, and require stricter sourcing for extreme claims than merely "appearing in an article" or "being made by counsel to the Palestinian Authority". – SJ + 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no “genocide” to speak of, encyclopedically. Zanahary (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section). It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV. No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ~~Palestinian genocide question per VR (for titling consistency with Holodomor genocide question),~~ or to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per nableezy here. The latter might lead to a better article in the long-term IMO, and will make it easier for readers to see the relative weight of each set of allegations. I agree with Levivich on the topic area being poorly organized, and spreading content across too many articles in general; hopefully the regulars here can address that. The Criticism of Israel article is no place for a merge since it should be renamed or split/deleted like all such articles (WP:CRITS). Criticism articles are where encyclopedic content goes to die (and not get read). DFlhb (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also alternatively support a merge to Allegations of war crimes against Israel or a move to Allegations of Palestinian genocide, as Levivich suggests; "Palestinian genocide question" feels too uncommon an expression to be used as an article title. DFlhb (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Israel It is genuinely possible to write articles about questions of genocide, and Holodomor genocide question and Armenian genocide are excellent examples of the use of high quality sources from books and scholarly journals that address the topic; this is not what we have here. This article is a COATRACK recapitulating the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner, characterizing every historical event as genocide. These are largely fringe theories and the sources don't meet the same standard as other, far more legitimate articles. I would have suggested a merge, but it's not clear that there's anything in this article that is not already in the Criticism of Israel article, which already includes the word "genocide" more than a dozen times as part of various allegations. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. As other editors have already suggested, the title should be Allegations of genocide against Palestinians, just like we have Accusations of genocide in Donbas, Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Holodomor genocide question (unfortunate counterexamples IMHO are Transgender genocide and Uyghur genocide). When it is not generally accepted that certain crimes against humanity amount to genocide, we should use "allegations" or "accusations" in the title, to avoid misunderstandings on the part of reader and to address the topic in a more neutral framework. However, the topic is notable, there are sources showing the existence of theories and public discourses (not WP:FRINGE) on a genocide against Palestinians, so we should not delete the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that title is unacceptably ambiguous. You see it as "Allegations of (genocide against Palestinians)" but many people will read it as "(Allegations of genocide) against Palestinians" as if the Palestinians are the ones accused. Zero^talk 10:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Allegations of Palestinian genocide, Palestinian genocide accusations or Palestinian genocide question would be better and avoid the ambiguity you note. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something that doesn't make it sound like it's a thing already. I was surprised to see the amount of sourcing available in support. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right?! I had no idea there was such a large body of extant literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, etc. Like others have argued, this article only recapitulates the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner. WonderCanada (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per all above Parham wiki (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to one of the above proposals. There's certainly arguments to be made some of Israel's actions constitute genocide, and it's a common and well-documented-enough accusation to have its own article, but the current title seems to imply it's actively occurring, which violates NPOV. The Kip 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOPAGE. Fringe conspiracy theories don't belong in a separate page. Wikipedia hosting this page is problematic given the widely adopted IHRA definition of antisemitism which includes this kind of unsubstantiated allegations. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:Fringe literally says the opposite of what you're saying: " To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." If this is fringe it means it must NOT be merged into any article and must remain a separate article. VR _talk 21:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic atleast for people of gaza, facing Collective punishment and White phosphorus attack. Having this article on Wikipedia isn't anti-Semitism. This article may be contradictory for the recent event's but for the 70 years it is definitely.Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: I agree it makes sense to name the page Allegations of Palestinian genocide or something similar. The page could use a criticism of the concept section instead of deletion. Restructuring and further edits on the page would help a lot, since I think it would be better to have the article start with multiple conceptions of what "genocide" is and then frame the discussion around that rather than listing events and calling them genocidal, which violates NPOV. Catboy69 (talk) 2:35 AM 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Notable, significant minor point of view. Suggesting move to Genocide of Palestinians or Alleged genocide of Palestinians, depending on consensus, for clarity. NasssaNser_talk 03:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick glance at GScholar suggest this is a topic discussed in academia, even if for some it may not be politically correct. Sources to consider: [28], [29], [30]... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an alternative interpretation of reality held by very few, it doesn't deserve a page separate from the Palestinian/Israel conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is more than enough coverage of this to deserve an article. Additionally, I see no reason to believe this is a fringe topic, nor has anyone provided evidence to back this up. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree with a rename along the lines of "Allegations of genocide of Palestinians" or the "Palestine genocide question" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: to nableezy's suggested title or Palestine genocide question. I've read too many articles in the past week using the word genocide to think this is a fringe position anymore. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of WP:SYNTH. We don't create articles for every inflammatory political accusation just to make it possible for people to search for that accusation and say "see, it's real". Allegations of genocide in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would be a more appropriate title. Ar2332 (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes it is well sourced, but this is a slippery slope, because there is no agreement on using the term "genocide" in this context, hence the very existence of the article violated NPOV. Tomer T (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not WP:NPOV, this is blatant propaganda-pushing and WP:FRINGE. We already have Holocaust inversion, which this article presents as fact. Qualiesin (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the scholarly content to Human rights in the State of Palestine (as suggested above) with the section title "Palestinian genocide question" (also repeatedly suggested above). I am aware that currently the page I suggest merging to does not discuss the actions of the Israeli army in Palestine (there is no mention, for example of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh or of the Jenin refugee camp or of the fact that Palestinians living in the State of Palestine cannot vote in Israeli elections, yet can be imprisoned in Israel). Perhaps moving this topic to that page would lead to improvements. Another possible solution (my second choice) would be to merge to Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the occupied territories.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; potentially rename. There definitely is an argument to be made about what's happening in Palestine and Israel. Let's be honest, it's not like Isreali government is giving flowers to Palestinians. And some things like displacing people, removing them from their ancestral homes, and putting them inside the walled off ghettos, while their homes are given to "the settlers" is definitely something that would definitely support arguments for genocide. However I do argee that Wikipedia should keep neutrality (which does not mean deleting something to not upset Isreal, which I'm after might be at heart of this proposition). As I recognise that international community does not sounds alarms of genocie, nor nobdy stood in court with charges. However the accusations are thrown so often, and for as far back as to the Mandate of Palestine, I do believe it is something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia. I would propose, to review the contents in article, and rewrite unneutral points of view, only to include facts of what's happening, and remove heated interpretations. As simlar example, I would suggest looking at article "Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Note that it doesn't outright says "Geonocie of Ukrainians (2020s)", since it is an ongoing issue and it will be years if not decades before international court will actually officially call it genocide if such will be proven. Maybe it would be wise to rename this article in a similar matter, to something like "Allegations of genocide of Palestinians by Israel" or something like that.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you are going to claim that something is WP:FRINGE, you are going to have to prove that assertion with actual evidence based on reliable source coverage and without using original research. If you cannot, then you are just engaging in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, I don't see how this should be merged since the topic and scope of this article are about the characterization of an ongoing event as genocide rather than human right violations against Palestinians by Israel in general. For the proper article title, we should have a proper requested move discussion after this deletion discussion is over. For NPOV issue, we should also have a separate discussion about that but it is definitely not a reason to delete. --StellarHalo (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disclaimer: Two users sent me emails about this thread a while ago but I ignored at the time. My comment is: If you can find solid evidence like a leaked military document that explicitly states Israel's intention to commit genocide on Palestinians, theN keep. Else delete, merge, or rename. Also could someone please direct me on how I can stop receiving emails from users? I received another email today and I responded via email and I didn't realize I had given out my real email!!!!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wh15tL3D09N You can go to your preferences. There should be a check box on the first page to disable email. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I find it peculiar that some editors are wanting deletion because simply they disagree with the article, e.g. (no “genocide” / this could not be further from the truth. starship .paint (RUN) 08:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our notability guideline with multiple RS. Some of the above ivotes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are many vague waves at NPOV. If those issues exist they can be fixed. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. One the one hand this is a clearly notable, if arguably FRINGE characterization of Israeli actions. On the other, it is generally undesirable to have separate articles looking at a topic from different points of view. A merge such as those proposed by SashiRolls is probably the best way forward. Also, as SomethingForDeletion notes it is much more useful to inform our readers of what crimes/human rights violations have been alleged and or /proven than to present the scholarly/legal debate over what constitutes the specific war crime of genocide. Maintaining this article as it stands is a disservice to our readers. While a merger would be best a rename with concomitant rewrite would be a worthwhile improvement to emphasize that this a partisan characterization rather than a broadly accepted understanding of the conflict. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with many others here that this is essentially a fringe, POV fork Criticism of Israel. There may be some content here that could be merged to that article or other related ones. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This genocide accusation is just hysteria and hyperbolism caused by latest conflict in an attempt to drawn attention, we've seen this many times before. There's obviously no Israeli genocide being carried out BY Palestinians either. The genocide bar has been lowed so much to appease the latest Palestinian war propaganda that any county in conflict could claim genocide. They're doing this by using a very broad, stretched, and cherry-picked definition of genocide. Unlike the apartheid accusations, which gained weight thanks to independent reports by influential NGOs, this accusation comes exclusively from A COUPLE of activist and partisan academics. Still it has no weight for a standalone article. It's just a fringe propaganda slogan trying to pass as mainstream theory. Maybe some of the text could be moved to the "2023 Gaza war" article, in the reaction section. Also there's A LOT of WP:SYNTH going on. Mixing together many different events in an attempt to create a narrative. And why in the "forcible population transfer", it is not mention that all jews were removed from Gaza (and expelled from arab countries) Was that genocide as well?. This violates our neutrality policy, it is POV-pushing and wiki activism. Losing territory after a war that you initiated is not genocide. And of course, the blockade hoax: Palestinians are in a prison 😭 they can only go out to slaughter thousands of civilians. No food or medicine is allowed to pass 😭 but they have no problem importing missiles, guns, and ammunition. The "blockade" could be lifted at any time, it's not genocide.

This clownish article is only still standing because there's now way more pro-palestine users than pro-israel, instead of exercising constraint and neutrality, they're taking advantage of this to pamphletize each and every Palestinian propaganda. –Daveout(talk) 08:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bias-replete and policy-devoid statement. Laying it one a bit thick aren't you? Three propaganda accusations in one comment? Also "blockade hoax"? And the fringe is ... here? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they can go out killing people, if they can smuggle guns, ammunition, and thousands and thousands of missiles, Blockade is not the right word to use is it friend? I've seen farm fences more constrictive than that. The Gazan "line-in-the-sand" is more like it. –Daveout(talk) 09:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and the topic is notable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The article is poorly sourced from fringe, extreme-left, anti-semitic propoganda, is patently false, and can be easily viewed as inciting hatred and even violence. It should be removed immediatly before someone acts on this collection of lies. DaringDonna (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete genocide is not the right word for what's going on. Andre🚐 02:34, 24 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. ✗plicit 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Biofuel Alliance[edit]

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

It fails WP:ORG, WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It is basically also a WP:CFORK of 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mauritius, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, India, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BusinessLine used in the article now is green per sourcebot, then I find this in a Canadian financial news tv station [31]. Many other hits turn up, should be ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alliance an international alliance and is notable enough. It has enough citations from reliable news sources. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bunch of sources available [32], more than can fit in the G20 page. Nom fails to explain why it fails WP:ORG, seems to pass fairly easily. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 21:32, 21 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!} 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zev Sebastian[edit]

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

Seems unlikely that a child with a single solo performance, and some minor competition placings is notable enough. There definitely isn't enough WP:RS coverage to justify an article, and doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 8 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!} 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A few weeks ago I contemplated opening an AfD on this article, as I was not finding solid grounds for notability: placing between 4th and 10th in an age-band award in the Henle competition is insufficient, and the EMS (presumably Enfield Music Service) awards mentioned in his programme notes are non-notable here. See also Cullen328's evaluation of the given sources on the article Talk page. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find sourcing for this young musician, sourcing used isn't helpful. Having a large following on social media is fine, but we don't use that for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 15 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!} 07:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Creative[edit]

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Arizona, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 8 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!} 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to jingle, there are some references primarily from Dallas but not enough to show notability in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 15 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. BD2412 T 04:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linux on IBM Z[edit]

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

this article is a patent ad. i came across this article expecting wikipedia quality, but i was slapped with nonsense like:

"Instead of paravirtualization, IBM mainframes use full virtualization, which permits workload density far greater than paravirtualization does."

"Combining full virtualization of the hardware plus lightweight Virtual Machine containers that run Linux in isolation (somewhat similar in concept to Docker) result in a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint,[12]"

of course that [12] reference points to nothing that backs that crazy statement, but it gets funnier...

"which also can lower operating costs. Additional savings can be seen from reduced need for floor space, power, cooling, networking hardware, and the other infrastructure needed to support a data center."

so i added the 'advert' tag and head on to talk to discuss the issue, but what i found in talk is shocking: this page has been a ridiculous ad for nearly 20 years, and wikipedia could not fix it. excerpts from talk:

- This article reads very much like an IBM ad. [2005]

- Simply one of the worst Wiki articles I have read. [2007]

- I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. [2016]

the nonsense statements that i quoted before regarding performance ("a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint" etc) contrast with real performance comparisons published by 3rd parties (note: IBM disallows or disallowed publishing benchmark results). please read the "performance" talk section, where someone tried to add real performance info but it was deleted even when the writer produced sources for said info.

in summary:

- this article contains too much ad content, and thus nothing in it can be trusted.

- real info depicting weaknesses of the platform gets deleted.

- this could not be fixed in nearly 20 years.

- nobody cares enough about this page except parties with vested interests, and thus it will never be fixed.

the existence of articles like this weakens wikipedia and the trust we have in it. i much prefer the absence of an article to a compromised article. thus, i second what ThomThom said in talk:

I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. I did wikipedia searches of "ibm linux" and "unisys linux". There is no similar "Linux on ClearPath" article about using Linux on the Unisys mainframes. This article mentions advantages and pricing for zLinux that read like a marketing white paper while NOT even mentioning that it has direct competition in performance and pricing from Unisys. The solution to the NPOV problem is not to have the article mention Unisys. Nor is the solution for Unisys to have it's own article. This article should be dropped as not being encyclopedic. My background: I'm a federal employee (IT specialist - DBA, series 2210) who programs on Unisys mainframes using CODASYL/COBOL. ThomThom (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lanchon (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTADVERT. This article is a content split of IBM Z. For a standard article merge would be a possibility. Merging is out for this brochure-like article. I also don't thik WP:ATD-E to stubify works for such a content split. I'm fine with redirect as well, especially if any other editors think this can be in the future. —siro χ o 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral, leaning towards keep. Must be cut down. WP:N isn't proven in the article, but seems plausible with the Register, Motley Fool (passing mention which doesn't count much) and I found 1 other in a quick search. Fine as a WP:SPINOUT due to the size of IBM Z and the separate scope to the main article. My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this, so it's a niche topic. Widefox; talk 23:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this" As in "a lot of OSS is not byte-order neutral, and runs only on little-endian machines, and is thus not available on Z/Architecture", i.e. the lack of big-endian ports has hindered this? Guy Harris (talk) 01:01, 8 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!} 01:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a substantial portion of the content needs to be deleted as WP:NOTADVERT, but I think enough will remain to keep the article. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:27, 11 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!} 08:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Walt Andre🚐 00:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What Walt Yoder said. Linux on IBM Z § Advantages, Linux on IBM Z § Pricing and costs, and Linux on IBM Z § Appropriate workloads either need more references or beter references (the first needs more and better references; the latter two need references, period, as they currently have none), plus whatever changes are necessary to match what the references say, and then some cleanup to make them sound less promotional, or they need to be removed. What remains might be good enough to keep, as a companion to other Linux-on-XXX articles such as PowerLinux. (And if what remains isn't enough to deserve an article, perhaps that applies to some other Linux-on-XXX articles as well.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:00, 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 05:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reier Broadcasting Company[edit]

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

A company that only owned radio stations in one market — Bozeman, Montana — seems unlikely to have much chance of getting the significant coverage to meet the GNG. Some details about the end of the company that are here but not in the stations' articles probably should be integrated into them, which may require a nominal merge and/or redirect with, say, flagship property KBOZ (AM) as an alternative to deletion. A 2021 PROD was contested because of finding some more coverage onlien [sic], but a trade report on the sale and revival of the company's stations probably isn't enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above. I was the person who added the PROD tag in 2021. KBOZ would be the logical place to put most of this material first. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG along with WP:NCORP. User:Let'srun 02:30, 21 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 delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Aid Israel[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:NCORP, based wholly on sentiment for the current horrible Hamas-Israeli conflict. WP:NOTNEWS applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Terrorism, Business, Israel, and Palestine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: aside from the nom reasons, WP:PROMO very much applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Delete WP:ARTSPAM Does not meet inclusion criteria. Preys, purposefully or not, on the anguish we feel over the latest war. WP:G11 was declined. I cannot be objective, (about the G11ness) but I think it was G11able. came here from Liz's talk.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. This reads like an ad for the effort. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cryptowashing of a horrible event should never be entertained here, nor should any kind of aid ever be stuck in a math problem only a computer can solve. WP:PROMO trash. Nate • (chatter) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article definitely looks like some sort of advertisement or promoting a business. Nonetheless, this article doesn't stand to a neutral point of view. Geko72290 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand why the speedy was declined, but the sourcing for this initiative isn't there. Star Mississippi 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source analysis shows that it does not satisfy general notability because the sources are not independent. All of the sources are publications of the cryptocurrency community, and therefore have a conflict of interest. The source analysis is:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	cointelegraph.com	Not independent because it reports on the cryptocurrency community	No	Not really significant about the event because mostly about the cryptocurrency community	?	No
2	news.bitcoin.com	Not independent, but significant coverage	No	Yes	?	No
3	decrypt.co	Another publication of the cryptocurrency community	No	Not really in enough detail	?	No
4	www.cryptoglobe.com	Another publication of the cryptocurrency community	No	No, mostly asks for donations	?	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. No evidence of level of in-depth coverage in WP:RS necessary to meet notability requirements. Sourced to unreliable crypocurrency websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion on my talk page regarding the article. I've requested CSD to the article. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 06:53, 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 keep‎. The AFD nominator has added some of these references which is an act I've rarely seen reviewing hundreds of AFDs and which is appreciated. Often valid references stay in the discussion and don't get integrated into the article being discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stateline (TV program)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Despite running for 15 years between 1996 and 2011, and an additional 3 years as 7.30 from 2011 to 2014, the article so far, only has 2 references. I hope someone adds more references to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. E.g. "ABC cuts: state 7.30 programs broadcast emotional final episodes", The Guardian, "Affairs of State", The Sydney Morning Herald, "7.30 Report cut back as States get ABC airtime", The Sydney Morning Herald, "State affairs back on ABC's 7.30 slot", The Age. Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as shown by Jenks24, WP:HASREFS and improvement rather than deletion is appropriate. Storm machine (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Storm machine, as the nominator, I am pinging @Cunard to see if he adds the references mentioned by @Jenks24 to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24, as the nominator, I have added the references that you have mentioned to the article just now. I am pinging @Cunard again, to see if he can find any more references for Stateline. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:20, 22 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 Fire chief. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chief firefighter[edit]

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

A "chief firefighter" is just the exact same thing as a fire chief. The article was created in 2005 yet is a single-paragraph stub with no sources. It covers the exact same topic as fire chief but with a different name and for some reason a Prussian focus. It's also obviously inaccurate at a glance, calls North American "chief firefighters" "fire captains" despite the existence of an article for fire chief. JM2023 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fire chief and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fire chief. Should probably merge chief fire officer too. Firefighter ranks in general could probably use cleanup. - Indefensible (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fire chief per those above. I can find no source that delineates a distinction between a fire chief and a chief firefighter. I do think, however, that chief fire officer may be something different, and UK-specific. BD2412 T 02:36, 22 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 ABS-CBN original programming#Youth-oriented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abt Ur Luv[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. The article has been unsourced for over a decade, and there don't seem to be any sources to draw from anyway. Checking through newspaper archives only shows trivial mentions in schedules and catalogs. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Plenty of coverage in the Tagalog wikipedia. English news has this as confirmation [33] somewhat brief but mentions the show years after the fact. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Could you direct me to where the subject is covered on the Tagalog Wikipedia? w:tl:Abt Ur Luv redirects to a list of ABS-CBN programs which doesn't have a source related to this subject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I hadn't bothered to translate the page, I assumed it was a long list of episodes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! The news article you've provided above also seems to be only a passing mention of the show, and I couldn't find any more sources; the subject still does not pass any notability criteria. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:NTVNATL. Google News Archives only show passing mentions. Alternatively, redirect to List_of_ABS-CBN_original_programming#Youth-oriented where it is mentioned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above seems like the better choice. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 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 no consensus‎. While I don't find the argument that bases are generally notable (or that similar articles exist) persuasive, there is no consensus about whether the sourcing meets GNG, which for me is the main argument here. Closing as no consensus on this basis. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RNZAF Dip Flat[edit]

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

Non-notable military base. Fails GNG while being unsourced for 15 years, nothing but routine/trivial mentions in searches for source finding. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and New Zealand. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have numerous articles for bases just like this. Did the OP do a wp:before check prior to listing this for deletion? - wolf 08:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Military bases have generally been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Military bases are normally noteworthy and the article is in need attention, not deletion. Majorconvenience (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under what guideline are military bases & training facilities inherently noteworthy? The sources added are trivial coverage in relation to the subject itself (since none of them are about the facility itself, just routine "x unit trained here"). It looks like it's going to get a consensus keep regardless of failing GNG, could you still point out the guideline so I can make a note of it if I come across any future military training facilities like this. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "inherently noteworthy" and "normally noteworthy". The point being that bases typically have articles, or are part of articles (eg: part of larger, multi-service joint bases that were created out of mergers). Since you are following up here and engaging (which is a good thing), I'll ask again if you did a before prior to putting up the nom? Thanks - wolf 08:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went through Google News & Scholar which returned 1 result each, of no significant value, and a regular google search, that only returned insignificant minor articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Sources in the article and in BEFORE do not meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if SIGCOV sources are added. // Timothy :: talk 14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothy: You could just watch the article. You'll definitely see any changes, as opposed to someone maybe pinging you if refs are added. - wolf 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on if you consider Air Force News SIGCOV - the camp, which is *not* called "RNZAF Dip Flat" as it is not a base in its own right, instead being an outstation of Woodbourne, will be covered repeatedly in issues of Air Force News. Seems not to get into much Google Books that I can find, however. If this goes delete, a sourced excerpt should be added to RNZAF Base Woodbourne. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge of the Dip Flat content into Woodbourne's article would do the job nicely, it's quite clearly an adjunct minor outpost of the Woodbourne base rather than any notable facility in it's own right. Air Force News might be significant coverage but it wouldn't be independent due to any information coming from groups who own or were operating there and so doesn't count for passing GNG imo. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macktheknifeau: Wait, so you're in favour of a merge now? Either the content is notable or it isn't, whether it's part of another article or on it's own. Can't have it both ways. You should close this nom and do a WP:MERGEPROP instead. - wolf 06:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely stating that some of the content in the article could be added to the Woodbourne article if this is deleted. There's no guideline that requires the total purge of a non-notable article's content (for example, there are thousands of entries in war articles that involve non-notable minor battles & participants/units/squadrons), and in this case, it is clear that the Dip Flat "area" is not notable, but that a line or two could be added to the major, notable Woodbourne base as the military uses of Woodbourne do include occasional minor usage of Dip Flat even though there's not enough content to make it significant & notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:00, 11 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!} 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems to be 100km away from RNZAF Base Woodbourne I don't see a merge as being suitable as it can't be regarded as being an outlying field. While the sourcing isn't the strongest I believe that independent notability is established. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of available source material about this subject would be very helpful. "It's just notable" arguments are not helpful at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, per those above. This appears to be a distinct and independent operating facility. I would expect additional sources could be found through a diligent search. BD2412 T 03:53, 15 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Rock. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Rewind[edit]

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

Total WP:GNG failure that should be redirected to List of Sirius XM Radio channels like a myriad of other SXM channels have been. However, there have been multiple reverts of bold redirections in the last several years, and at some point an AfD discussion is necessary to have a consensus that can keep this. Pinging the users who have made the reverts this year, PrincessJoey2024 and SouthParkFan65, as well as Tdl1060 who restored the redirect in February 2023. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels § Rock — before all those restorations, it was pointing to that section specifically and not merely to the list alone — would appear to be the logical alternative to deletion here, as with many other Sirius XM channels without separate notability. (I again must point out that even the pre-2021 version of the NRADIO essay, amidst its overpresumption of notability on the broadcast side, did not do so for satellite radio channels and instead took the stance that independent media coverage would determine any notability, though it did not explicitly defer to GNG the way the current version of essay does). Apparently PrincessJoey2024's restoration does contain an attempt at sourcing (prior versions did not have that whatsoever), but they don't exactly look like the independent and significant coverage we're looking for. Given the parade of restorations, I can't exactly oppose outright deletion either, to get this text out of the public archives entirely… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparently PrincessJoey2024 has now reverted their restoration and restored a redirect. Given that this happened 32 minutes into the AfD discussion period, I don't think that's the correct way to handle this, right? (BLAR, with the backing of a 2021 RfC, seems to indicate that once such a redirect has been challenged the next step is indeed supposed to be AfD, and I'd have to think this discussion takes any precedent over even a self-revert going forward.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and someone needs to start nominating these channels 5 or 10 at a time. Mach61 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reverted the redirection. Please continue on with this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent and secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 02:14, 21 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!} 01:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth Step (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears the only reliable source in this page is a Loudwire article about a Days of the New tour that doesn't even mention this band. Couldn't find anything additional, and nothing on this page suggests notability that I can see. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I nominated the first go-round, please feel to disregard my position here. However, the last time, we got a "keep" mainly due to a "ridiculous number of refs". Well, as you can see from an analysis from the nominator (independent from me), it's not the number that's ridiculous. This band doesn't even have a listing on Discogs! As Discogs is a very thorough database of recorded music in my decade+ experience with that site, that means this band hasn't recorded anything of note. Since I nominated this article the first time, I've believed the Wikipedia is being played - we are being baffled with BS. There is practically no WP:GNG coverage of this band. It's cool they got to play on some tours, but where is the genuine secondary coverage (not just an artist roster line item) for that? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to note there are myriad bands from Louisville who are clearly notable and have released recordings. This hasn't proven to be one of those bands. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't thought to check Discogs, but since you mention it I checked Rate Your Music (also quite thorough) and the band isn't listed there either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking there. Another note about Discogs. I run into bands there all the time who have put out any number of recordings, and some quite nice ones, yet still haven't been considered notable for having articles here. So the idea of having an article here for a band who hasn't been proven to produce a darn thing is a head-scratcher. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much all of those sources are primary and/or unreliable in some sort of way. This article has a disturbing amount of maintenance tags, and I just don't think anybody is going to fix that any time soon. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually had the tab open on my browser to address some of those tags, but it would basically involve the nuclear option, after which I would find what both 1st and 2nd noms found, that all the provided sources are routine/promo. So delete is best. Jdcooper (talk) 12:04, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batavi (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No evidence of any significant coverage. WP:BEFORE reveals a listicle and not much else. Jfire (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also seems to have a very promotional tone. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find any reliable sources on this. DFlhb (talk) 20:39, 15 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. Please add newly located sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deshawon Nembhard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly no search for sources, given that the first page of Google News brings up 1, 2, 3. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. No BEFORE was done.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has enough sources. --Mvqr (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. 8/9 sources currently in his article aren't independent of Nembhard. amandala.com.bz source is a mention in a squad list. 1 is a match report where the Nembhard specific coverage is "man plays football match" and "has three caps", 2 has a paragraph on Nembhard, takes large quotes from a Football Federation of Belize press release and this article which is a copy and paste of this. 3 contains slightly more on him but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman, Ortiesp, and Mvqr. Internatiojallt capped player withn ongoing career and already has good sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:29, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Morales (Belizean footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 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!} 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Mensah (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 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 redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A spin-off companion from Doctor Who. While generally notable in universe, a BEFORE gave little to no results and her current article is lacking in sources. A redirect to the Companions article serves as a viable ATD, but I don't see enough sources for a whole article. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Not seeing how this plot summary meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 21 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.