Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 03	October 05 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Williams[edit]

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

Article has next to no sourcing and has been in this state for years. Additionally despite a long career there's no information, interviews or discussions of their work I could find through Google News or similar for WP:BEFORE. Ultimately this fails WP:NACTOR. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could locate no reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk)
Delete: Article fails to indicate why this person is important outside of the long list of credits, but sourcing is minimal and as others have said, there is no WP:SIGCOV. Bensci54 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:CREATIVE Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 11 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!} 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Christian Academy[edit]

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

The only thing notable about this school is a raid that the courts later found unjustified. There are two sources, one looks to basically be like Yelp for finding a school, so that's not really any good. The other is rather long piece from an NPR affiliate that describes the very harsh treatment of children at this school, which is barely discussed in the article. (adult men paddling girls, forced silence for days on end, shaming through making them wear weird clothes, stuff like that) I think there may be a broader subject here, in that the school is apparently part of a small empire of businesses in this part of Missouri from home construction to dairy cows and so on, and they basically have their own little town out there, but the school on its own does not seem particularly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Missouri. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is my assertion that the massive enforcement action taken against this school is uniquely notable, warranting an article on Wikipedia. 150 children were removed from the school due to allegations of widespread abuse. The OP is arguing that aside from this raid, the school does not appear notable, which is an argument I do not find convincing. The fact that the raid occurred is not disputed, nor the reliability of the NPR affiliate. The OP questions why it is the single source for the article, but the sole source issue is not grounds for deletion, as this is a stub article. More sources and commentary are welcome and always appropriate. The OP states that the details of the alleged abuse are not covered in the article, however, this too is not grounds for deletion. By the OP's own argument, the school was found not liable in court when it challenged the raid, so discussing the allegations in detail in the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate. Without disputing the central fact, that the raid occurred, there is no grounds for deletion. Enforcement actions as large and unique as this raid are clearly a topic of public interest. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're way off in saying the allegations of abuse, documented by reliable sources, cannot be discussed in the article. The central issue here is that this type of abuse is somehow actually legal under the law in Missouri, not that it didn't actually happen. I can't see the KC Star article you've added because of the paywall, but from the headline that seems to be the entire point of that article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily oppose additional commentary on the allegations if it complies with Wikipedia policy. I mainly disagree the omission of such details, beyond a broad description, is grounds for deletion. The Star article does not claim the allegations prompting the raid were true but legal. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I could access from that article

"Aaron Rother was 16 when the leader of his boarding school announced they were packing up and moving again, to their third state in a little more than a year. But this time, in the mid-1990s, Agape Boarding School was moving away from the “nonbelievers” in Washington and California and heading east. To a place with “good Christian people,” no government scrutiny and where leaders could feel free to run their school the way they saw fit. “It was the feeling like we were going to the Promised Land,” said Rother, whose father dropped him off at Agape in Othello, Washington, when he was 15. “Kind of like, ‘This is where the Christians can go to not be messed with.’ “When we got to Missouri, they announced to us that they had found THE place. Like this is our new home. … The state followed God’s law, that’s the message they told us.” It’s a message that seemingly has been heard across the country for decades as schools have made their way to the Show-Me State, where a nearly 40-year-old law allows faith-based residential facilities to operate without a license, any scrutiny or interference from the state. From Washington and California to Michigan and Mississippi, the schools come to Missouri, where no one is watching or keeping tabs. The Star found that at least seven schools moved here after being investigated or...."

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this survives AfD, it should be renamed. There are at least 6 other schools named Heartland Academy. Jacona (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a good deal of coverage of the raid (including this, NYT, etc) and legal actions immediately following, but I also wanted to see if there was continuing coverage. Newspapers.com is currently out of action. NewspaperArchive.com had some coverage of the event, plus some more recent ROUTINE coverage. I've not got a lot of experience citing Proquest, but when I searched there I found lots of references. There was more coverage from 2001-2006, but it continued. The coverage was nationwide. There was especially a flurry of newspaper articles in 2010 (here's one) because of a suit filed by the school against the feds. There was another bump in 2017 when the founder died [1]. There was this in 2021 and this in 2022. These may not be the best links, but I chose them because they are the most recent, showing the school is still being covered more than 20 years after this event. I'm just scratching the surface, but this is a lot of stuff, plenty to meet WP:NSCHOOL for starters. There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV that could be used to expand the article. Adding Charles Sharpe to any search may help weed out a lot of references to similarly named schools, and still provide you with useful references. Jacona (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 3 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!} 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the nomination, the article has been significantly expanded, containing many of the reference mentioned above, plus some others. At the time of nomination, there was one RS, now there are nine, providing more than sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Many more references are available on the internet, including through the Wikipedia Library. Jacona (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Jacona's edits this article now has coverage spanning several years. It has also been expanded and improved considerably. Oblivy (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Jacona's addition of multiple reliable sources, this article now meets WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 11 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 prodecural close‎. Wrong venue, discuss at its RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danger Force characters[edit]

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

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue, see its RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danger-verse characters[edit]

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

excessive redirect, shows have no mention for Dangerverse. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue, see its RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dangerverse characters[edit]

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

excessive redirect, shows have no mention for Dangerverse. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. The proper venue for a redirect is WP:RFD, where this redirect is currently being discussed. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Henry Danger franchise[edit]

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

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue, see its RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Danger Force[edit]

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

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue. See its RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Henry Danger[edit]

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

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - already listed at WP:RfD, the correct place Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XMedia Recode[edit]

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

Only references are primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this subject meets WP:GNG
1. Softpedia staff review[2]
2. Micro Mart review [3]
3. A profile with staff editorial input in chip.de [4]
4. Some coverage in several 3rd party books, here's a couple decent examples out of many in several languages [5][6]

—siro χ o 05:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non primary sources obviously need to be added, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If single paragraphs and write-ups in software download sites like Softpedia are sufficient for an entire stand-alone article, our standards are way too low. Softpedia "reviews" basically everything that's sent to it. The book is a single paragraph in a how-to book. These are more like directory listings than reviews. Beyond that, our article is currently an advertisement for the software, standing in for the official site and citing absolutely no independent sources. Delete for both notability and WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the Softpedia product review, there are only mentions. The video is barely a minute long. I did find a "how to" and a software listing that may have been a source for some of the content of the article, or at least it contains much of the same information. Still, nothing that would raise this to notability, IMO, as these are just reiterations of the tech specs that come with the software. Lamona (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to have WP:SIGCOV and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Sharief[edit]

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

The article was draftified and moved again back to mainspace. I suppose one option is to draftify it again but I don't think we can avoid the notability issue. This is a pulmonologist who's been interviewed by FoxNews (at the height of the COVID epidemic) but that doesn't result in in-depth coverage. There's no indication that he meets WP:PROF either. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and California. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A scientist who publishes, and reviews other's work, not terribly notable. That's what a scientist dies. I can't find mentions other than in the Daily Mail. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - originally created with junk advertorials, paid placement, and the Daily Mail. Could not find anything else in a search; just directory listings and more SEO. Note, the last source is garbage; it seems to be some kind of essay that alludes to sleep centers in general, and ties them to this physician - not clear on the "CEO" claim. Regardless, not notable in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For possible WP:NPROF C1 notability, I see two highly-cited papers, but one is also highly co-authored. I don't think it is enough in a medium-high citation field, and the citation counts tail off quickly. I agree that the Fox news human-interest story does not contribute much to notability, and I don't see much else. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears you're describing a scientist who conducts research, publishes papers, and also participates in peer review, but may not have achieved significant recognition. Their contributions might be less widely known or celebrated in the scientific community. This is not uncommon, as not every scientist attains high levels of fame or prominence. --Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant Profs are generally not notable and the GS doesnt indicate passing WP:NPROF#1, the highest cited first author paper has 33 citations. Maybe a case of WP:TOOEARLY. --hroest 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Delete. I'm not sure we should decide on the assistant professor, as medical professionals often have primary appointments in hospitals, not universities. The GS profile shows three highly or moderately cited papers in a high-citation field but then a sharp drop off (473,406,195,53,33), and as previous commenters have noted, they have lots of co-authors. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hammesfahr[edit]

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

Hammesfahr is notable solely for his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, where he was one of the five doctors called to assess whether she was in a persistent vegetative state or not. Claims that Hammesfahr had been nominated for a Nobel Prize in 1990 have been removed because the claims were specious at best (as discussed at Talk:William Hammesfahr). Other than links to the Schiavo case, most coverage available for Hammesfahr is either self-promotional, or negative (claims of quackery have been made, but not sufficient for him to be covered as a notable quack). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Florida. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do find mentions of him, and at least one interview (with Hannity on Fox) but no third-party sources of substance. He is known for only one thing: claiming Schiavo was not in a coma. But there has been no sustained reporting on him. It looks like this article came about due to a detailed effort to cover the Schiavo case on WP. Lamona (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Terri Schiavo case. It's been 18 years since the case, the most WP:LASTING effect was the case. (Hence, there's not an article about Schiavo herself based on WP:1EVENT.) I only note a redirect if, for some reason, his relevance is provided in the article about the case. – The Grid (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hammesfahr's involvement was not significant in Schiavo's case. He was one of 5 doctors called on to evaluate her condition. He and one other expert considered that she might be capable of recovery, while the other three experts disagreed. He did not treat Schiavo, or get involved in the case in any other way. I recommend a thorough reading of the Terri Schiavo case article for better understanding of his role. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have a rather minor role in relation to a single event. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Being a "a top-20 hit in three countries" is not reasonable citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does indicate that the song may be notable if it's charted, but we need sourcing that talks about the song. It's not a "free pass" just for charting, but it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - charting on four major country charts is an extremely strong indicator of notability. It's exceedingly unlikely that a song would perform so well globally as a single and then proceed to not have a few publications cover the song. If you're having a hard time finding coverage, it's likely because it's a single that was big prior to the internet era. Coverage is likely locked away in hard copy publications. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The song is still discussed 20 yrs after the fact [7] and [8]. I can look for more, but we've proven notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here from a period dead-tree edition of Billboard [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a mini review of the song on a period CD (which I think I might have actually....) [10]. Trivia about the lyrics [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what you mean by "not reasonable citation", but that charting is clearly sourced, as is the Australian Gold cert. It could use more to verify other information, but that's more than enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This song has charted in numerous countries and this is sourced in the article. This passes GNG and NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." This article is reasonably detailed aside from just the chart listings. See no reason for deletion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not have set the world on fire, but it still achieved notable success. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG as 33rd on the Billboard Top 100. And Oaktree has uncovered further RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 11 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!} 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot PMR[edit]

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

This was rejected for speedy deletion, so here we are. This is a plainly promotional article about a nonnotable company. The information about the company and its staff is entirely unsourced. The Client listing (which takes up most of the article) has the only citations in the article. All 10 of them are to niche industry publications ('Marketing Magazine', 'PubZone', 'Media In Canada' and 'PR in Canada'). Most of them are currently 404 links, but with a little googling it was possible to find the proper articles. Not a single one of them meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Most are a single mention with no detail.

Since this company doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Companies. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References on the page and in a WP:BEFORE all fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daemaar Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory listings and interviews with the CEO, nothing about the company per se that isn't cursory or promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are mainly interviews with founder and nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a construction industry group, sourced to brief interview-based articles heavy on vague terms like "vision" and "commitment". Searches find more of the same, such as the founder being listed as no.22 in a magazine's Middle East sector list [12]. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Liga 3 South Kalimantan[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Refs in article and BEFORE showed nothing other than promo, stats and game recaps. Nothing meets independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing provided except for stats, which does not make this article notable in any way. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 01:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Author sock blocked.[13] // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMU Alor Pantar F.C.[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Refs in article and BEFORE showed nothing other than promo, stats and game recaps. Nothing meets independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only sources provided are mere stats of the team, no notable coverage present. Also, none of the sources are in English. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 01:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Author sock blocked.[14] // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udupi Hidden camera case[edit]

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

Per NOTNEWS. Incident blown out of proportion, and does not seem likely to recieve SUSTAINED coverage Sohom (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Sohom (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks enough sustained coverage to pass WP:NEVENT.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a "peeping tom" situation, nothing terribly abnormal about it (sure it's not proper and kind of disturbing, but it reads like any other incident of the type would). Might be TOOSOON, if it evolves into something substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable event with no significance. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no way to know if the coverage will be WP:LASTING Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per the RFD ruling. (non-admin closure)‎ 4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AZK[edit]

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

I quote DoubleGrazing's previous edit summary when declining this AFC draft that has now escaped to mainspace: "I think this comes under WP:DABNOT. Dab pages are not there to list every imaginable thing which has some conceivable connection with the term..." It is not required. It is contrived and should go. There are even redlinks in it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: An RfD was closed with consensus to disambiguate literally 17 minutes ago. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 15:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this DAB is fine. Red links are acceptable in DAB pages as long as the reader can go somewhere (WP:DABRED). I would also say even ignoring the red links, the Anti-Censorship Coalition and esports player are probably enough for a DAB on their own, especially if search results are rather ineffective as the mentioned RFD claims. (There was also a pretty clear consensus to disambiguate there, which probably also lends itself to keeping.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the consensus of the RfD discussion that this should be a disambiguation page. The page as it stands is perfectly acceptable even by very strict interpretations of what is acceptable for disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the non-ip participants in the RfD: @Shhhnotsoloud, BD2412, and Lenticel:. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't try to argue against the RfD outcome, which I think is as good an indication of community consensus as any, but I will say this much: per WP:DDD redlinks should not be included on a dab page unless articles point to them; links to other language versions are also at best borderline per WP:DABSISTER; and that last item must be a joke (seriously, who searches for 'AZK' when wanting to go to Counter-Strike match fixing scandal?). Take those out, and you're not really left with much. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your last question, someone wanting to read about the match fixing scandal as a whole is unlikely to use AZK as a search term, however those who want to read about Keven "AZK" Larivière and/or his role in the scandal is very plausibly going to search on "AZK". The only link to another language version in the dab page is the automatically generated interwiki to the disambiguation page on the German Wikipedia, so that part of your comment doesn't make much sense. If you are referring to the Anti-Censorship-Coaltion, then the German acronym for this organisation is used when writing about it in English, so is arguably the strongest entry here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The assertion that "redlinks should not be included on a dab page unless articles point to them" is not policy, and is not exactly what WP:DDD says. The term is sufficiently mentioned in the blue-linked articles. BD2412 T 17:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine–Philippines relations[edit]

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

There isn't much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Philippines, and Palestine. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Fine, you win. I'll delete the article. Remember that I am still a beginner in this website. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you delete the article. Whoops.. it's not an automatic thing Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much about their relationship per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Yadav Bolleboina[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found in Gnewspapers, the one link given is only confirmation of the film. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Isaacs[edit]

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

The article lacks enough context and majorly highlights the perfections of the person in mention. This is not from a neutral point of view Fredabila (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes contributor piece [15], rest is all local coverage, talking about the quirky commercials he makes. Certainly odd, but not seeing notability beyond the other hundreds of such lawyers in the US that all make commercials. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has had a song by a notable rapper written about him and gone viral/had his business go viral with Superbowl commercials. Additionally, involving an individual's philanthropy in an article is hardly calling them "perfect" and the language of the initial deletion nomination feels charged/biased itself.Captbloodrock (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is the lawyer that Jack Harlow wrote a well-known song about, he literally mentions him by name. Also, not all of the coverage for him is local; the A/V Club did an article about his Super Bowl commercial as well-- https://www.avclub.com/all-other-super-bowl-commercials-pale-in-comparison-to-1841449145 Anatomyoffear (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, since my first draft of the article I've included more thorough sources from reliable outlets, as well as citing a news story that occurred a few days later in which the subject became the sponsor of a major college sports team. The Wikipedian who nominated the article also appears to have some sour grapes over their own autobiographical article being deleted a few times, and based on the tone of their nomination for deletion I feel it was made in less than good faith.Captbloodrock (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving it one more week, borderline no consensus leaning delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few more sources to establish notability, including an article from the Australian Business Journal. I've brought this up a few times now and it hasn't been addressed but I feel it's worth pointing out again I feel the initial nomination was made in bad faith and that we shouldn't even be in an AFD discussion at this point.Captbloodrock (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes adequate references. Local coverage is acceptable for biographies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets notability criteria; article is adequately cited.EEBowen (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough significant coverage to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harold J. Ross[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references that have all three required qualities. Fails the general and artist specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice stuff, but fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in Jstor, Gscholar, Gbooks. Not listed in the Getty ULAN. Sadly, even the NYT piece used is an interview, so would only partially help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Doctor Who audiobooks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Train[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references. Fails the general and book specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Popular culture. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of Doctor Who audiobooks: the latter does have a section for Eleventh Doctor. Maybe I am lazy but I failed to find independent sources for WP:GNG.- Altenmann >talk 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who audiobooks, where it is already listed. I also failed to find any significant coverage or reviews on this. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, just as importantly, aside from the nominator, no support for Deletion, Redirect or Merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kelso[edit]

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are episodes (primary) and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Scrubs characters. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Note, you'll find more results under "Dr. Kelso" or similar.
1. McFarland Book Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy with a large amount of SIGCOV of the character in a variety of ways [16][17]
2. Character used as a case study for a few paragraphs in leadership book[18]
3. IGN has several articles with secondary SIGCOV of Kelso including several reviews and at least one list, eg [19][20][21][22], we can count this as one very solid source.
4. Some coverage around ethics and kelso in this book [23]
5. Here's some coverage of the character's arc and portrayal through the show 10 years after. [24]
6. Other short bits of coverage related to:
  - diversity and race [25]
  - gender [26]
  - more medical ethics [27]

Note this was not an exhaustive search.

—siro χ o 03:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the sources...

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries, so I don't think those parts prove notability. I do see parts that compare him to Dr. Cox or talk about their conflicts, so perhaps that can be used, but I don't see it as a reason as to why he's notable.
Second source is just a case study, as you have said, but it's perhaps not the best source to prove notability since it's only a paragraph.
IGN sources include 4 episode reviews and 1 list. I don't think a character being featured on a best characters list, especially a list for Scrubs characters only, really proves notability; the other 4 episode reviews doesn't seem to go much in depth about the character from a real-world perspective (he's mostly mentioned in plot summaries)
The fourth source has a commentary section that uses one of Kelso's decisions on the show as a case study. It's better than the second source, but it is just one episode it's taking the case study from, so it might not be good to prove Kelso's notability, but it can perhaps be used for the character section.
Fifth source only briefly mentions the character and sums up his storylines. It's pretty short and has no other commentary on the character.
Sixth sources:
- Diversity and race source is a brief mention as an example of racism.
- Gender source is also just a brief mention as an example of the slang word "hellcats"
- Based on previews because I can't find a full version of the source anywhere, the Medical ethics source seems to focus more on Dr. Cox and only mentions Kelso when Cox interacts with him.

So overall, there are a lot of sources that talk about Kelso as a character. While not a really good point towards notability, I do think the major sources about the characteristics of Kelso can be used, like the first and fourth. Spinixster (chat!) 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries. You are mistaken. —siro χ o 04:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on mostly. I did explain at the end of it that there are some parts that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly" is a relative term, and while "Does the source mention the subject?" is an either/or question, "Does the source mention the subject enough?" is not. I think we need to embrace the subjectivity here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Does the source mention the subject enough" is important here because for an article to be notable, it needs extensive coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Plot summaries don't count since they are trivial. Sources that cover the topic extensively from a real-world perspective do. Spinixster (chat!) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading that essay in an unconventional way. I'd suggest a careful reread. Most of that essay has to do with Wikipedia articles, with a minor reiteration of the importance of secondary sources. You also may have missed the section of that essay, § Plot Summaries as Sources, which contradicts your own summary of that very essay almost to the word. —siro χ o 03:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section was added in 2022 with no consensus, and the lead of the article says ... an article about a work of fiction or elements from such works should not solely be a summary of the primary and tertiary sources, they should also include real world context from reliable secondary sources. Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context. In this case, plot summaries would be a tertiary source unless there is commentary, and there needs to be enough commentary on the character to prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear if you are implying anything and if so what it is. Is it your assessment that Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy is a tertiary source? —siro χ o 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that the plot summaries with no commentary are tertiary. Again, I explained that there are content that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by Siroxo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used some of the sources provided in the article, but of course I didn't do the ones I can't access. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a sufficiently notable fictional character based on sources identified. BD2412 T 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream (Lebo Mathosa album)[edit]

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

Contested draftify, no sources and just a track listing. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 14:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article sucked and should've been left in drafts, yes, but now is clearly notable with the addition of a source confirming multiple award wins. It's still a stub and could use much more work, but that doesn't invalidate its presence in mainspace. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this nomination was mainly TNT (yes, I know, TNTTNT, but this was well beyond the pail), since sources have been found and the article has been expanded, so I'll withdraw this. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of the South African Music Awards can be found in these sources, one of which is the indisputable Billboard: [28], [29], [30], [31]. While most coverage of the album is retrospective after the singer's death in 2006, this article can stand on its own after some improvement. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Americans in Arkansas[edit]

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

Not needed in its own article. Already covered by the main Demographics of Arkansas article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the statistics are true, from what I understand, people of Greek descent are classified as Mediterranean in US statistics... Regardless, already covered in the demographics article as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork per the nominator's rationale.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external link to a state encyclopedia article about white flight...this is WP:POINTY and the creator was blocked, so I can't assume good faith about why this article was created in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction The original creator was blocked and is likely socking via 170.80.111.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, it is an indefensible WP:POVFORK from demographics article and is, as stated above, very WP:POINTY. It fails literally every test for article criteria from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Numajiri[edit]

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

I'm admittedly not an expert in the history of Japan, but I can't find anything that mentions this battle in Gbooks or a general Google search except for this article and the one about Yoshishige. If the subject is notable then the writer would have, presumably, used a better source than a random website that isn't even using modern HTTPS security. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT; there is significant coverage and around 100,000 troops were involved. WP:BEFORE requests that searches be performed in the native language. There are actually a large number of discussions of this battle in Google Books when searching for the Japanese, e.g. this from Chūō Kōron and this from a book it published, this from Shūkan Tōyō Keizai, other coverage here and here. I stopped after those five but there are clearly more as well. Dekimasuよ! 22:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we integrate information from those sources into that article, please, so this isn't single-sourced any more? If this can be done, then this would be a keep from me. — The Anome (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: Given the existence of ja:沼尻の合戦, with its multiple sources, I've now changed my opinion to a strong keep. — The Anome (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for performing a more thorough WP:BEFORE, as I'm limited by my inability to understand Japanese. I'm happy to strike my vote if you'd be willing to add these sources, with page numbers for the books, to the article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and support adding the Japanese sources. - Boneyard90 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Dey[edit]

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

Not notable. Claims of notability are based on his acting career, but the article also says he has yet to appear in a film. Sources given are unreliable or don't actually cover the subject. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NO coverage found in Gnews. What's used in the article doesn't help, ImDB isn't a valid source. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is contingent on actually having done something of note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet to appear in a film? Delete as certainly WP:TOOSOON, if notable at any point in time. GraziePrego (talk) 05:27, 9 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 Spatula. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frosting spatula[edit]

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

I agree with Mrs Beeton Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spatula: No need for standalone article Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli relations[edit]

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

This page theoretically has a broader scope, but it currently just duplicates content from Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement, while pointing to the broader "normalization agreements" that have been signed, and which are collectively referred to as "normalization agreements", e.g.: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, Israel–Morocco normalization agreement, Israel–Sudan normalization agreement ... also known as the Abraham Accords, which is where this material is already covered in full. Arab–Israeli relations more generally are already covered at Arab–Israeli conflict, which holds the context for why normalization is necessary in the first place, and Arab–Israeli alliance. Outside of these contexts, it's unclear if "ethnicity–nationality" is an appropriate framing for foreign/international relations, as this would seemingly just veer in the direction of a repeat of content from articles on the relations of Israel with a collection of 20 other countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and United Arab Emirates. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:COMMONNAME, Arab refers to the Arab world. There is a vast literature on the subject which relates to the collective positions of the states and is more than just about conflict; some examples.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Ma'oz, Moshe; Rubin, Barry; Ginat, Joseph, eds. (1994). From war to peace: Arab-Israeli relations, 1973 - 1993 (1. publ ed.). Brighton: Sussex Acad. Press. ISBN 9781898723103.
^ Klein, Menachem (March 2000). "The 'tranquil decade' re‐examined: Arab‐Israeli relations during the years 1957–67". Israel Affairs. 6 (3–4): 68–82. doi:10.1080/13537120008719572.
^ Eisenberg, Laura Zittrain; Caplan, Neil (14 July 2010). Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00457-4.
^ Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven L.; Telhami, Shibley (15 November 2012). "The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011". The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6586-4.
^ Kostiner, Joseph (December 2009). "Saudi Arabia and the Arab–Israeli Peace Process: The Fluctuation of Regional Coordination". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 36 (3): 417–429. doi:10.1080/13530190903338946.
^ Kaye, Dalia Dassa (29 March 2001). "Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 1991-1996". Beyond the Handshake. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50532-1.

The only possible argument here might be a TNT, but I do not see it, the article can be easily stubified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a stub that simply duplicates other articles. That's sort of the problem. I left it an open question as to whether this article should/could be supported or not. But this page has content that is such a fragmented aspect of any potential whole topic that it's not a useful start - so yes, I would say WP:TNT would be applicable until an editor has the will to create something that is not than just some scattered notes on one part of the Abraham Accords. As it stands, the page is just a navigational obstruction on the encyclopedia that can only serve to potentially crop up in searches and direct readers here to an essentially functionally useless page rather than to an actually useful page on the subject such as the main Arab–Israeli conflict page or Abraham Accords page. I arrived here by just such a journey, looking for the 'Abraham Accords' page. All of the sources above refer to the conflict and peace process. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every source from a Zionist, mostly in occupied Palestine itself. This presumption that "Israel" can have "relations" with a single ethnic group -- membership in said group totally defined by the Zionists -- obviously serves to flatten Palestinians into "Arabs", "just like all the others", "and why can't they just go elsewhere in their people's lands?", etc. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that the Ziostate is the Universal Jew which represents and embodies every Hebrew on Earth, despite its very existence being considered an abomination by devout Hasids and secular American kids alike. So...do you have anything -- literally ANYTHING -- from a Palestinian scholar? Or even just one who isn't explicitly Zionist??? Thanks. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see a reason why this can't be a broad-concept article covering both the conflict and the alliance. As Goldsztajn points out, this topic is clearly notable. Deletion is not cleanup. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicative of Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. Also covered by Abraham Accords, Arab–Israeli conflict, and Arab–Israeli alliance. Just because the title could be a broad-concept article doesn't mean this article should be kept, so no prejudice to reorganization of those articles that may include this name, but someone would actually have to do it rather than having another redundant stub. Just because the high-level topic has coverage for notability doesn't mean we have to have this page when the topic is still covered in other articles (WP:NOPAGE), and that's not merely cleanup. Reywas92^Talk 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those are subsets of this topic; this is the top-level subject. This is akin to arguing for the deletion of the Africa–United States relations article because it is made up of component parts. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, all the sources you provided were about the "Arab–Israeli Peace Process", which is absolutely a child article of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" - you can't have peace without war. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Menachem Klein piece is not about the peace process, second, the texts themselves discuss relations in toto, third, even if it was only a list of texts with titles related to the peace process, those texts *contain* (as does much of the literature) material that is beyond the conflict per se, for example, discussion of differences within the Arab states towards Israel. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is notable as previously stated. All it needs is a clean up and rewriting. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What an understatement! Are you going to rewrite it? Reywas92^Talk 13:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arab-Israeli conflict. Someone can expand the article into a broader concept if they want, but right now it is actively confusing to have an article covering one small fragment of the general topic, with a very search-likely title that implies coverage of the whole general topic, when we actually do have a page on the general topic.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was essentially one premise of the nomination - one that I could have perhaps elaborated on. As long as the article does not contain broad concept material, it is simply a navigational hazard for readers. It would be better redirected to a page where the material is better covered, and, if and when someone expands the material it could of course be re-split out to this page as and when required. But this is a definite if. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in others' thoughts, not ideal, not outright opposed, but much better than delete. My concern is I don't like the equivalence implied by this particular redirect. My only other thought is could this be a disambiguation page? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote for the moment, pending others' inputs. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European colonization is an inherent conflict, one which doesn't end until genocide is complete. Your feelings are immaterial. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it's a notable topic on its own, but WP:TNT of the existing article and rewrite starting with the Oslo Accords and Camp David Accords. Andre🚐 21:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Neighbours characters. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Neighbours characters[edit]

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

My primary concern is identical to that expressed in the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters. "This does not meet WP:NLIST. It should be either deleted.. or mergerd... . Consider that eventually, each show will finish and then this division into current and former characters will be even more pointless." I'll also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters, which seems to be relevant to this (under the old name of List of regular Neighbours characters), and which concluded with Merge into single article that was clearly not done. I'll also note that recent Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Neighbours_characters, dominated by participants of WikiProject Soap Operas ended with "no merge". Given the contradictory consensus on merge expressed in those past discussions, discussion in a wider venue not dominated by a single WikiProject seems needed. I'd be fine with a merge, but IMHO we don't need more than one list of characters for this or any other show (if the length is an issue, we can always entertain a split into 2+ parts such as A-M, N-Z or so on). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one list P.S. List of regular Neighbours characters was the formr name of List of former Neighbours characters ("R from move") Move summary says "Revert name changes in light of series returning to production" - which is an extra argument in favor of a single list: no one can possibly know who is former and who is current in the long run. - Altenmann >talk 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann And there is more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters... and see Category:Lists of Neighbours characters. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – First of all, the merge was done, but this was because the show had ended, so *every* character was former. Secondly, it is not difficult to know who is former and who is present: when a character leaves and is no longer appearing, they go to the former list. If they return, they go to the present list. It's really not that hard. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – I was just about to go to bed so this will probably be quite short, but here goes: Firstly, both fully sourced pages do meet LISTN as there are many sources clearly indicating present and former characters differently. Neighbours itself is also quite famous for its use for bringing back former characters for guest stints, particularly for the anniversaries and the intended finale, the latter of which was highly reported on due to former characters from various decades all returning, especially ones played by high profile actors such as Kylie Minogue and Margot Robbie. There are also many sources which specifically focus on the present characters and former ones separately, which I am happy to list in the next few days (and hopefully other editors of the project will too), which illustrate how both are notable as a group individually.

Also, separating the lists is not pointless. It is important as it ensures that readers are aware between the difference between current and former characters. This soap is known for it's high changeover and aired continously for 37 years. I disagree that it means that there is a lot of work for editors – it is not, as editors are constantly updating character pages etc and we also move characters when they debut, leave, return, are upgraded to regular or recast. Usually when a character leaves an experienced editor or IP moves the character to the former list the minute the episode airs. Merging the pages could cause the page to be too long and possibly tagged with a *too long* template, let alone it making it even harder to navigate. WP:Wikipedia is not paper – two pages (one of former and one for present) is not an issue at all and makes it easier to navigate. Also, that policy, along with Wikipedia:Article size, explains how it is important to not make pages too long and too big as it affects download times and creates other issues and suggests that long tables are split off into stand alone pages. The former and present character lists have been used for decades by the soap community through excessive consensus (as I have seen through looking at a lot of the revision history etc from years ago) and this has worked well for years and never caused an issue. Additionally, if the show does end again (which bear in mind could not be for another 50 or so years – Coronation Street is still airing 63 years later!) then we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Also, a split of it between 2 parts would not make sense and it also would not show who is currently appearing in the show and who isn't. The lists are notable for non fans of the show, but for readers who are fans who do watch the show currently, a list not clearly indicating who is currently appearing and instead showing characters from 30+ years ago would not be helpful. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are returning, they are not former, just recurring. List of recurring Neighbours characters exists, in fact, and needs to be merged too, as clearly there is unnecessary overlap. As a reader, I want one comprehensive list of characters, not n list divided with unclear criteria (by date or status). Status (recurring, former, whatever) or date of introduction trivia can be covered in the main list, which can even be made sortable by such parameters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a character returns after an absense they are not recurring, recurring characters are different. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is functional and useful. I'm not convinced merging with List of Neighbours characters would be in the project's best interest, but even if that were to happen it would be a merge, not a delete. As I have mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters, the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters was in entirely different circumstances (i.e. when there were no present characters), and was enacted at that time. U-Mos (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos For the record, I prefer merge to deletion for all referenced content here, too. But I don't get it why readers are supposedly better served by having multiple similar lists? An average reader wants to see one list of characters, without trying to figure out why someone is not here and looking for them on a former/recurring/by date/something else sublist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NLIST. The list is functional and provides a split for readers. The show hasn't ended so running away with a theoretical situation and using it as a reason for deletion is bad faith. – Meena • 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would AGF if the nomination reason wasn't total grot. The show hasn't ended, next. – Meena • 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters - I normally hate this word, but this is so much WP:CRUFT. We do not need a meticulous listing of "former" characters from this show. No show, not even something as big as The Simpsons, should have a "former" character list. Especially since almost any of these characters can be brought back at any time. I also believe this after this discussion, which I believe should definitely be taken into account for the closer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters One list seems sufficient. Otherwise, it becomes WP:CRUFT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: This article is massive and it, along with another huge article, will make List of Neighbours characters absolutely massive and very hard to navigate. Not to mention that by having this article, it is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Deleting this article will just go against all other soap opera and even some other TV series articles, which makes zero sense. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a bit unclear if this article should be merged or kept…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see the comments that this would create an article that is too large, but the answer is to clean up the unsourced material. As is, there is still a case for deletion. But merge is a valid compromise and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single character on both pages are sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Shooterwalker was referring to the List of recurring Neighbours characters, which is almost totally unsourced? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. And the List of Neighbours characters is short enough that WP:SIZE shouldn't be an issue. The extent of the merge and clean-up can be handled through editing, but we don't need multiple lists about the same thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Frederick Göhsl[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as their is no evidence for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Simon (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as their is no evidence for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Schmidt (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC HawkAussie (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nermin Ibrahimović[edit]

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

Have looked at sources for this player and it does fails WP:SPORTCRIT. HawkAussie (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. HawkAussie (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also failed to find WP:SIGCOV under "Нермин Ибрахимовић". Found some weak coverage in German like this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ung-u[edit]

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

I'm gonna take the step forward and try to tackle with this. I don't think there is any significant coverage about this person besides With the Century, the autobiography of Kim Il Sung, which I would consider not RS. One passing coverage from RS I found is here. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my point, notability is not inherited. Being the grandfather of Kim Il Sung does not make one inherently notable. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Depends what kind of sources you want I guess, North Korea's various gov't websites have coverages about this person using the typical flowery language... Some coverage in US sources, when the Navy found an old flag with a connection to this person [32], [33] Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed journals mention him in context [34], [35]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, @Oaktree b. The flowery language of NK government is what I'm most concerned at. I will look into the US sources and the peer reviewed journals. TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the North Korean sites on work's VPN, and even on my personal internet, it's a bit of a crap shoot to get them to load. KCNA is usually the best one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The basic information in Kim can be rolled into the article on the Kim family or perhaps his son. The information on the General Sherman incident can go into the General Sherman incident article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Commuting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to work[edit]

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

Journeys to work are already described in the Commuting article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting, obviously not a distinct concept, but fair to cover the study of commutes in that article. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting would indeed be the best idea for this page. TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting with redirect is fine. 23:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC) dml (talk)
Merge and Redirect: Commuting is the best target. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 17:20, 10 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 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Fails wp:DAB. Article is basically a random selection of articles with names beginning with Uzbekistan. // Timothy :: talk 07:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is mostly carrying the article related to Uzbekistan stuff. Good Faith Fancy vißes (call) 07:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not a proper disambiguation page, as none of these things (with the possible exception of the airline) would really be called "Uzbekistan". All the sports topics can be moved to Sport in Uzbekistan. BD2412 T 17:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; not a viable dab page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:04, 10 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 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

樂天[edit]

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

Wiktionary entry for non-encyclopedic content. Fails dab // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither WP:DAB nor WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primium (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does appear to be disambiguating honorific and company names used in the subjects of several articles. However I am dubious about whether such an en:樂天 page fulfills a useful function, clearly not meeting WP:NONENGLISHTITLE, and if it didn't exist and someone did seek "樂天" on en.wiki, wouldn't the search results be informative enough? AllyD (talk) 20:59, 10 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 06:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USHR[edit]

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

Since United States Heraldic Registry's deletion in 2017, this has only linked to two things: United States House of Representatives and Islamic taxes § Ushr. The first fails MOS:DABABBR, and I don't think the sources support "USHR" being nearly a common enough abbreviation for the House for that term to be added to the target article. And the second doesn't need disambiguation because WP:DIFFCAPS applies; no one had made Ushr till today, but I've gone and done that. Since this does not help readers arrive at any page explaining the usage of "USHR" in all-caps, it should be deleted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ushr is by far the primary topic, but it isn't commonly rendered in all-caps so a redirect there wouldn't be useful. As for other uses, the most common by far is the US Hockey Report, a website covering amateur ice hockey that is commonly used as a reference but about which we seem to have no encyclopaedic content (I have not evaluated whether it is notable). In article space I can find one use of the acronym to what I think is the US House of Representatives and that should be rewritten to use the full term (see Direct representation#Disadvantages), and a single use (as usHR) for "Union of Students for Human Resource" at Indian Institute of Management Shillong#Clubs (a wholly unreferenced section), something not mentioned anywhere else on the encyclopaedia and which I don't think merits a DABMENTION (I don't know what the current consensus is regarding mentioning societies like this in articles so offer no opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above. I've never seen ushr, the Islamic tax, spelled all in caps and there is no reason it ever would be. (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to WP:RfC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that USHR is not significantly used, and WP:DIFFCAPS applies. Even if USHR were significant and the same, WP:TWODABS would apply, and Ushr is primary. --Bejnar (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Lipskar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just routine reporting in his position as head of the Aleph Institute. Longhornsg (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Uzbekistan, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 27 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!} 06:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Law & Order characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Lewin[edit]

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 27 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!} 06:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs non-primary sources, to be sure, but I'm not sure none exist. This character was a major part of one of the most influential programs on television. Here are some hits on Google Scholar: Main search with summaries. I'm getting better quality on Google Books: Prospects of Legal Semiotics Women, Violence, and the Media: Readings in Feminist Criminology Lawyers in Your Living Room!: Law on Television Because of the way Google Books' preview function works, I'm not getting a good enough look to say these sources do cover the subject well enough to show notability, but it looks like they might. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the sources only briefly mention the character, so they aren't really usable. Based on the few hits on Google Scholar, I'd say those sources are the same. Spinixster (chat!) 12:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I put "comment" instead of "keep" or "redirect." If a character is mentioned a lot and becomes a by-word, like Gomer Pyle, or if a character is so well known that he's used as a measuring stick in professional journalists' editorials about real politicians, like Jethro Gibbs, then that character might be notable enough for an article. Nora Lewin feels more borderline to me, so I'll provide the sources without drawing the conclusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE search isn't showing enough WP:SIGCOV. These are trivial mentions at best, and not enough for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Ragab Gomaa[edit]

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

Coverage is all of youth initiative short films, (non)notably under the Start Your Dream initiative by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture. Student films is not the stuff of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR both of which the subject signally fails. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mildly tiresomely, User:Danilo9750 insists on repeatedly removing the AfD template from the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:49, 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!} 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sourcing found for this individual, even what's given in the article barely confirms the roles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just an aside, just because an individual editor can not access a source used in an article doesn't mean that it is not a reliable, independent, worthwhile source. If other, experienced editors can access a source and they attest that it benefits an article and you can't access it, exercise good faith and take their word for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise English Medium School[edit]

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

No significant coverage beyond passing mentions and a few articles about routine events at the school. Tube·of·Light 05:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and West Bengal. Tube·of·Light 05:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case, there might be enough coverage such as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. to allow on notability. There are more but I stopped looking. - Indefensible (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG per Indefensible's sources plus several articles from 10-15 years ago in The Statesman and other short but non-trivial mentions, eg [36][37], etc. —siro χ o 07:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•DELETE- Only reference listed on the article is a non-RS. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360: Did you read the sources that Indefensible and Siroxo provided before !voting? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specificaly said "listed on the article". PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and 3 out out of the 4 links he provided say access denied. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:06, 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!} 06:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Indefensible and Siroxo. Combined, there's definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 out of those sources provided say access denied PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulGamerBoy360: The two Proquest articles are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, and having a paywall alone does not disqualify a source, per WP:PAYWALL (though I wouldn't count the TOI article towards notability). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now the pages are loading, when i previously clicked the proquest ariticle links provided, an "Access Denied" message popped up. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:30, 11 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. This is partially because, after three weeks of this AFD being open, there is no support, other than the nominator, for deleting this article. This closure doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement and I hope editors will tackle some of the problems pointed out by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy[edit]

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

Deletion policies 4, and 14. per WP:DEL-REASON Article created with primarily publicity and advertisement purpose thus not suitable. Also, questionable/marginable WP:NCORP. Aside from rev-deleted copy and paste spamming, there has been a lot of SPA/IP promo adverts. Graywalls (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Advertising, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2009-03 Chris Maj (closed as ✗ delete)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Scrapes by WP:GNG. Seems like a very active organization with a ton of university chapters, so there are a lot of sources about them in university and local papers (here are some), a lot of stories that briefly mention them for events/activism, etc. Putting those aside, though, there's a journal article about one of its cases (Skarin EA. SSDP v. Spellings: Judiciary Acquiescence of a Law with Racially Discriminatory Effects? Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 2010;14(1):301-326. Accessed September 26, 2023. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=62169915&site=eds-live&scope=site ), some coverage from Filter Magazine, Filter again, High Times, Seattle Times, bits here and there in the Washington Post, Reason covered one of their events, and though it doesn't count for much as far as SIGCOV goes, there is a huge quantity of sources which interview/quote SSDP members (e.g. Washington Post, WaPo again, CBC). It's not a slam dunk, but given the amount of press coverage they're getting on the basis of proliferating student clubs, I'm content to err on the side of keeping for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really shouldn't use Filter Mag to establish notability. Look at the info on the publication. It's like using paper industry publication to claim notability to someone that makes cardboard or fan club website to establish the notability of a fictional character. "The Influence Foundation Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, founded in New York in 2017. Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights." What you say is Washington Post is actually The Times UK, so perhaps you mistakenly labeled it wrong, but "Jones is a former board member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK (SSDP) which has guided the transformation in universities’ approach to drugs." is not sigcov. The actual WaPo one is not SIGCOV. "Gonzo Nieto, a drug educator and a board member of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said...." in CBC not sigcov. Fails NCORP hands down, which requires significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources and one source counts as one, one journalist counts as one. At least one of the significant coverage must be of great WP:AUD. Also, are comments posted AFTER the 7 day period admissible??? Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AW Elttaruuu (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep per sources cited by, and comments of, Rhododendrites. A bare-minimum WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the argument is "per xx", my rebuttal argument is the same. The sourcing fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input, and since both keep !votes are "weak".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Responsible drug use#Organizations where the organization is referenced, and merge any relevant content there. Revising from my previous !vote of "weak keep" based on the subsequent arguments made by Graywalls. Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be plenty of sources for this organization, just not currently in this article. The article can be improved. As noted above there are recent articles mentioning it too, such as Seattle Times from early Sept. --AW (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a significant coverage. It's kind of a routine coverage about groups on the University of Washington campus and there's a few sentences around the SSDP. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just one example, there are multiple above, and if you google it and choose news, various other articles talk about the group --AW (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  For example https://qcnerve.com/students-for-sensible-drug-policy-launches-statewide-fellowship/ and https://seattlemedium.com/uw-students-hope-to-popularize-harm-reduction-on-their-campus/ - took me about 2 minutes to find AW (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  One's an alternative local paper, another is a local paper. This article is about an organization, so it needs to meet WP:NORG, and one of the required criteria to be met is WP:AUD. None of the sources you referenced meet AUD. At least one must, but preferably multiple sources meet WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV together. The Seattle Times one, although a regional paper is not a significant coverage. Graywalls (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Perhaps re-direct is the happy middle. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have a feeling no matter what newspaper source I cite for this org, which has many, you will find some reason why it doesn't matter. This isn't a local organization, but local sources are writing about it, that's not a bad thing. Just above in the discussion we have Seattle Times, you say no, we have Filter, you say no, High Times which is probably the preeminent marijuana magazine you didn't comment on, the two I took 2 minutes to find, you say no. Here's some more I found in about 2 more minutes of searching the web. MLive which is a major one in Michigan https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2022/03/university-of-michigan-student-group-wants-ann-arbor-to-fully-decriminalize-drug-possession.html, Reason mag https://reason.com/2022/10/25/outside-the-white-house-protestors-urge-biden-to-release-nonviolent-marijuana-offenders/ Rolling Stone (not directly about SSDP but talks about them) https://www.rollingstone.com/culture-council/articles/cannabis-exceptionalism-drug-reform-movement-1289647/ etc etc etc. Again, these took me seconds to find. And as someone else noted above, a bunch of articles quote SSDP staff in broader articles about the topic. --AW (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Here's some more: the Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/health/newcastle-university-students-offered-ps3-drugtesting-kit-students-for-sensible-drug-policy-a7020726.html, Detroit News which talks about SSDP organizing the event the article is about https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/03/22/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-speak-ann-arbor-hash-bash/7127379001/, Tampa Bay Times https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/usf-launches-student-amnesty-policy-for-overdose-situations/2154376/ AW (talk) 20:19, 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!} 05:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me the full 7 days so I can do a source analysis table. I understand AfDs are not !vote but consensus. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

still working on it Graywalls (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Revising (again) from my previous !vote to redirect. Based on the sources listed by AW, I am now convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Filter 1, and 2	Y	N	?	N	N	Significant dependence on people associated with the organization. The magazine is also a POV, limited circulation niche pro harm reduction industry magazine, so not passing AUD. Also, articles by same publications count as one, articles by same journalist/authors also count as one according to NCORP.
Seattle Times	N	Y	Y	?	N	trivial coverage even though it passes AUD.
Washington Post	N	Y	?	Y	N	limited depth of coverage.
Reason	N	N	N	Y	?	That they led a protest and its members were discussed.
Independent UK	N	N	Y	Y	N	article about drug test kits but discussion on SSDP is limited and mostly quoting little snippets of their chapter members.
Tampa Bay Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Not much contents in a way that instills significance to the SSDP, but about school policy. It's chapter member is interviewed, but very little contents about SSDP.
Detroit News	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Trivial coverage/announcement of partnership.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Neighbours characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Neighbours characters[edit]

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

A long list with single reference, unnecessary duplicating parts of List of Neighbours characters and failing WP:NLIST. It should be merged or redirected there, which would also be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters where it was mentioned and where the close verdict was Merge into single article. This time the closer should (assuming similar consensus) redirect the article instead of waiting for someone to do the merge; clearly, someone is not coming and the effectively unreferenced status of this is not very helpful. PS. See also related and currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Neighbours characters. Moving characters from list to list (former, recurring, present...) is pointless make work. Editors interested in this should rather try to improve a single list with content and references. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose: Nope, nope, nope for the same reason that List of former Neighbours characters wasn't deleted. You say that List of recurring Neighbours characters duplicates List of Neighbours characters. What parts are duplicated in that article? Literally none. That article is for characters that are currently recurring. The article for proposed deletion is for recurring characters who formerly appeared (please don't say that they therefore belong in List of former Neighbours characters – that article is for former regular characters only). This trend of proposing the deletions of all these soap character lists is getting a bit repetitive now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What parts are duplicated in that article?" Curtis Perkins is mentioned in both. Reece Sinclair and Trevor (dog) are metioned in the main list under recurring section, but not in the recurring list. Cleaning up this mess into a single list will help the readers too (as a reader, I find the current system very opaque, probably because it is developed by few Wikiproject members for themselves, not for an average encyclopedia reader - or even soap opera fan). There's a reason we have MoS and other policies (like GNG). Wikipedia is not fandom, where a group of fans can create their own walled garden that looks they way the like it, or fork it into variations (separate wikis on fandom, which for our soap opera coverage takes the form of ton of duplicative and confusing lists). It's high time to clean this up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Trevor and Reece aren't in List of recurring Neighbours characters because that article is only for FORMER recurring characters. They are STILL recurring. As for Curtis, that's simply an oversight. He was only announced to be returning a few days ago and whoever added him obviously just accidentally forgot to update the other article, so that's just a very nit-picky mistake. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do you mean that the article titled List of recurring Neighbours characters shold be renamed to List of former recurring Neighbours characters? IMHO this is pointless distinction that Curtis' example illustrates. If someone appears in the show more than once but is not part of the main cast, they are a recurring character. Why would you ever think that readers do not want to see information about them in the main list? I could understand having a section at the top dedicated to the current main cast, but after that, I see no reason not to include others. And I'd suggest doing it in one sortable table. It could be sorteds so that parameter for "current main characters" would be first, and then you could have other categories (former main, recurring, guest, etc.). People could also sort characters by date of first apperance (which I gather some folks care), and there cold be other info (like date of last appearance). There is no need to throw anything away, merging into one list will create a better tool then we have. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Piotrus: Hang on, hang on, hang on. So what are you actually proposing here? If the articles were to be merged, then what happens? Every single recurring character gets listed in List of Neighbours characters? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an In short, yes. To elaborate, they can be listed in a subsection, sortable table, or not listed at all if they are not important enough to get coverage in sources per WP:V. If one list is good for Star Wars (List of Star Wars characters), or Middle-Earth (List of Middle-earth characters), it will do for a soap opera. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Alright, that's what I assumed. My only concerns (the rationale behind my opposition essentially) is that the article will be completely flooded by recurring characters. In the article that is being proposed to be deleted, characters who had 2+ appearances are listed, so some guests with 2 appearances are included. For this merge, I think it should actually only be recurring characters, not just guests. My second thing was that it will go against other soap opera articles in that for other soaps, "List of [soap] characters" is only for characters currently appearing. So it won't be consistent with the rest of these Wikipedia articles and the current state of "List of Neighbours characters" will have to be drastically altered into an unprecedented and thus most likely incoherent manner. Those are basically my main concerns. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an While I am not a fan or expert on soap operas, I looked at one I think is relatively famous and the structure of the article at List of Dynasty (1981 TV series) characters seems very good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, that article is very different and wouldn't really suit Neighbours with how many characters there are, etc.. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty is completely different. It aired for less than a decade and had only 222 episodes whilst Neighbours has almost 9000. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The table would be longer, but so what? I don't think it would be too long. The recurring list is ~100kb. The former list is ~70kb. The main list is very short at just ~15kb. As much of this is wiki markup (table and reference code), the amount of readable prose is low. I don't see a problem with a merge, size wise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a very WP:POINTy nomination, the nominator is comparing list articles for soap operas which have aired for multiple decades with those which only have a decade or two worth of characters. They have also created previous nominations/discussions at List of Hollyoaks characers (1997), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Neighbours characters, Talk:List of Neighbours characters, Talk:List of Home and Away characters, List of EastEnders characters, Talk:List of Doctors characters, Talk:List of Coronation Street characters, Talk:List of Emmerdale characters. The current list format is consistent with similar lists, it has been split because of WP:ARTICLESIZE requirements and deleting such a large number of lists will be detrimental to the purpose and functionality of a Wikipedia list. Whilst further referencing is needed, there is no tangible benefit in merging and creating an unnecessarily long list. Happily888 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per the comments I made at Talk:List of Neighbours characters#Merge from List of former Neighbours characters. I don't think this article is serving a useful purpose, and it is kept up to date so erratically that its function isn't even clear. However, I do feel moved to point out the misrepresentation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters above, which was a consensus at the time the production had ceased and did not consider this article at all. If you'd check the edit histories, you would see that that decision was enacted, and later reversed when circumstances changed. U-Mos (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: functionally, I think this should be Redirected to List of former Neighbours characters, with the characters who have their own article (and are not currently appearing) added to that article. U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos So you think the List of former characters should be kept instead of merging with the List of characters? Why, if you don't mind me asking? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said previously, I think the two offshoot lists should be combined first rather than trying to do everything all at once. An informed decision on whether merging fully into List of Neighbours characters would then be possible, and it prevents the current discussions from being an all or nothing scenario. U-Mos (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Neighbours characters - I normally hate this word, but this is so much WP:CRUFT. This list is also essentially unsourced and pretty much unneeded. I also believe this after this discussion, which I believe should definitely be taken into account for the closer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters as redundant. - Altenmann >talk 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters One list seems sufficient. Otherwise, it becomes WP:CRUFT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we have already said this, and you can see in the revision, but someone did merge the former and present character lists after the talk. It was reverted when the show returned. You do not have to agree with it but spreading lies is not appreciated. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Therealscorp1an. There isn't actually much duplication between this list and List of former Neighbours characters or List of Neighbours characters. Whilst this list does need more references, there are many minor and supporting characters listed which are better to have here than in a different list; also strongly oppose merging all lists to a single list, which would present an WP:AS/navigation problem. Happily888 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Neighbours characters per rest supporters of merge. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of former Neighbours characters The big picture is that there are three articles about Neighbours characters. (1) List of Neighbours characters, which appears to be about current characters. (2) List of former Neighbours characters, which appears to be about former characters. (3) List of recurring Neighbours characters, which also appears to be about former characters.

Three articles about the one topic seems excessive. I can understand having two articles (one for current and one for former), but I don't see the need for a separate article about "recurring" characters. Furthermore, the concept of what a "recurring" character, and its difference from a "former" character does not seem to have been clearly defined. Chrisclear (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a solid consensus but several different suggestions. I am reluctant to Merge or Redirect to List of former Neighbours characters as that article is also being discussed at AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Neighbours characters. This does not meet LISTN and is not big enough as a SIZESPLIT. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge per above. Does not meet WP:LISTN and much of it isn't supported by reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Star Wars characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bossk (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Very minor Star Wars character. No reception/analysis, although there is a bit on creation/development - but it seems to be cobbled from mentions in passing (although we can quibble on whether this is not SIGCOV - but arguably it is not about him but his costume :P). What is rare, next to no plot summary. I think this fails WP:GNG (the character really is not discussed much outside the trivia about him being based on parts recycled from earlier shows, including Doctor Who) and should be redirected (merged?) to the List of Star Wars characters . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars characters seems correct here. There's actually a surprising number of mentions in academic literature, but I don't see enough to construct an article. Eventually it might do to have a Star Wars bounty hunters article that covers the wider topic outside of the big list, but that's not a reasonable outcome of this AfD. —siro χ o 04:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars Characters per nom. There's some good conceptual information that justifies a merge, but being honest I don't see a reason for such a minor character to exist separately unless someone manages to dig up a substantial amount of SIGCOV on him, which doesn't seem to exist out there (At least, not enough for an article, in any case.) Pokelego999 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars characters - He does have an unexpected amount of mentions and appearances for a character that initially appeared as a minor character in a single scene of Empire, but like Siroxo said, it is not enough to support an article on his own. The sourced bits on the costume can stand to be moved over to his entry on the character list, so a merge seems appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others and also redirect. Conyo14 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nothing substantial for WP:SIGCOV. A selective merge is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Star Mississippi 00:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hotchner[edit]

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are either episodes (primary) or secondary sources that are interviews or more about the actor, and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unreferenced WP:PLOTCRUFT, pure plot summary, nothing encyclopedic to see here. GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like many other TV character articles recently evaluated for deletion, this has a somewhat bloated fictional history section. Unlike those other articles, it also has a decent list of non-primary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 4 non-primary sources, all of them talk more about the actor more than the character or are interviews. I don't think it proves notability. Spinixster (chat!) 09:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner - The sources in the article and found upon searches are, outside of plot summaries of episodes the character appeared in, largely about the actor rather than on the fictional character he portrayed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. A lot of the coverage isn't really about the character, and the actor is a fine place to add the trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. I love the series but this is cruft. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 23:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Batey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mayor of a small city with less than 25,000 people. Mayors are not inherently just because they exist and pass WP:NPOL. The only in-depth sources are her official website, and her about on the city of Milwaukie website. FatCat96 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. FatCat96 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first and second nominations were about an unrelated person: this is the first deletion discussion about the Oregon politician. Wikishovel (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Milwaukie OR (not Milwaukee WI) is not a prominent enough city that its mayors would get a presumption of notability just for existing — but this is based too heavily on primary source verification of her election results rather than the substantive coverage and analysis in reliable sources that it would take to pass NPOL #2. The notability test for municipal-level politicians is not passed just by minimally verifying that the person exists — it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantial article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is the former, not the latter, and thus doesn't meet the necessary standard. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD twice before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to locate any specific biographical details in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kentucky Equality Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palmer (social activist)[edit]

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

Not passing BLP or GNG guidelines. No sourcing found about this person; most of what's used for sourcing in the article is about the Equality Foundation he's involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only mention found for this name is [38] about a labor lawyer in Los Angeles, nothing about this person in Kentucky. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are absolutely horrible with research. You need to focus on Kentucky media and newspapers such as the Lexington Herald Leader and the Louisville Courier Journal. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've pledged to abide by the classic wikipedia values on your userpage, points one and two in particular.

-Be unfailingly polite, even to vandals, let alone regulars with whom I disagree.

-Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity.

We're just here to build a better wiki, nothing else. Please remember that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Discrimination, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kentucky Equality Federation, the organization he heads. I found this article which contains some information about him but nothing else. Certainly not enough to meet GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are absolutely horrible with research. You need to focus on Kentucky media and newspapers such as the Lexington Herald Leader and the Louisville Courier Journal. But you’re going to have to pay to view them these days. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources with significant coverage, please share or add to the article. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid reason to keep an article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on my C-J account online and found one article mentioning the subject person, and it was as him representing the organization others are recommending merging his article into. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only filter Google results by country, they haven't gotten that granular to limit searches by state or province yet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't understood the discussion here then. We're looking at sources that discuss the "thing" the article is about. We have articles on everything from concentration camps to cat memes. So long as it's well sourced, we really don't care what people's "opinions" are on the subject. Please tone it back with the negativity and keep the discussion about the sources used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, no wonder no one trusts it anymore. It has gone to trash in the last five years with people such as yourself trying to delete good pages that have stood unedited for more than a decade. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this aren't helping. Either provide a policy-based !vote or provide a policy-based counterpoint. Idle complaining and griping like this isn't persuading anyone or going to be factored into the closing Admin's decision, so stop wasting your time. You're an experienced editor; you should know better. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Kentucky HISTORY. I have added additional newspaper clippings because you could not group up and be LGBTI in Kentucky for nearly 20 years without Jordan Palmer being an inspiration. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have not taken a stance in the matter, and don't disagree with your constructive comments on the subject. I'm just warning you to stop with all the "This is why no one likes Wikipedia anymore unconstructive comments. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely many articles in the Wikipedia today that are both quite aged and also don't pass WP:N and WP:RS. The point here with this AfD is the contention there aren't enough reliable secondary sources that cover the subject person as himself rather than as a representative of an organization. Of course, if you know of such sources, please bring them here (or add them to the article) - I'm sure they will be faithfully considered. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so go fix it then. Complaining won't fix it. I couldn't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. People are not "inherently" notable, or entitled to have standalone articles as separate topics from their employer, just for having jobs — but the sources here are fundamentally about the organization he worked for, not about him, and thus aren't establishing that he would surpass the bar needed to qualify for his own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above arguments. My horrible research skills are turning up practically nothing about the founder of the organization separate from the organization. People found organizations all the time that become notable, even if they ultimately do not. Of course, if someone with research skills superior to mine can show me up with links to reliable, secondary coverage of the subject, please proceed. And note, I do very much appreciate the subject person's work! But doing great, constructive things in this world doesn't automatically get you an encyclopedia article. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please consider/evaluate new sources added to the article. This action is helpful, complaining about the state of Wikipedia, isn't.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but they got deleted. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we know how you feel, please stick to policy-based comments here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional newspaper links added. Finding others. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the new sources added aren't about this individual, only quoting them on other subjects. Still not seeing GNG as having been met. Hyper-local coverage also, would help if we had more national news items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding these sources, but I agree with Oaktree b. I still see only passing mentions and not significant coverage about this individual. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald-Leader (formerly the Lexington Herald-Leader is housed at www.kentucky.com to reflect its sole coverage of the entire commonwealth as noted in their website address) is the only newspaper in Kentucky that covers the entire Commonwealth. I also found a front page article from The Atlantic magazine. I also located photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/184027243@N06/48665491353/in/photostream/ and here is a Washington, D.C. article https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24747229.html and another national article https://www.thepinknews.com/2013/03/28/us-kentucky-overrules-veto-on-bill-protecting-actions-motivated-by-religious-belief/ (one of many). Commonwealth1333 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews is about the lawsuit, not this person. Flickr photos don't help notability. I'm sorry, but none of these help the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding source assessment table based on those in the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Presidentman
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/growing-up-gay-and-transgendered-in-appalachia/238047/				✔ Yes
https://www.jordanpalmer.us/p/about-col-jordan-palmer.html	Self-published source about Palmer	~ Self-published source about Palmer		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2006/10/kentucky-equality-federation-protests.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/article43990728.html			~ Interviewed as leader of KEF but also discusses his own relationship	~ Partial
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/11/same-sex-couples-march-for-marriage.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Interviewed as leader of KEF but also discusses his own relationship	✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/02/kentucky-equalitys-response-to-family.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Not mentioned at all	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/living/religion/article44101584.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/12/2817807/group-files-lawsuit-challenging.html			? Dead link	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20131225005654/http://lezgetreal.com/2013/09/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-void-states-equal-marriage-ban/img001/	Lawsuit filed by KEF			✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2013/09/kentucky-equality-federation-sues.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear	~ Filing from opposing party in lawsuit filed originally by KEF		Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/	Facebook post from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Facebook post from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/01/five-questions-with-jordan-palmer.html	Published on Kentucky Equality Federation website	~ Interview with Palmer		✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2015/06/marriageequality-special-statement-on.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2012/04/two-plead-guilty-in-kevin-pennington.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article44160900.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2012/10/kevin-pennington-hate-crime-trial.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2012/04/first-federal-hate-crime-indictment.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article44156931.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article44171952.html				✔ Yes
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/148912/jordan-palmer#.U-8-5PldWFk	? Possibly user-generated content	?		✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44115600.html			Quoted as friend of subject	✘ No
https://www.jordanpalmer.us/	Self-published source about Palmer	~ Self-published source about Palmer		✘ No
https://www.wtvq.com/ky-equality-federation-threatens-lawsuit-for-alleged-discrimination-of-lgbtq-student/			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ 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}}.

Merge/redirect to Kentucky Equality Federation per Presidentman's reference assessment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Nasirabadi[edit]

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

Not seeing Wikipedia:POET here. Obvious failure of GNG. Tetrainn (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Three best sources fail WP:GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://irfannasirabadi.blogspot.com/?m=1	personal biography			✘ No
https://allfamousbirthday.com/irfan-nasirabadi/		no editorial oversight, circular referencing		✘ No
https://www.celebsagewiki.com/irfan-nasirabadi		per above	~	✘ 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}}.

NotAGenious (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Baloch Society[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. It is a housing society but there is no indication of importance and I cannot locate any sources which would establish notability. There are lots of links for real estate in the neighborhood, but that is insufficient. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; fails WP:GNG & WP:NORG. No references on this article. No article for it on Urdu Wikipedia or other local languages as far as I can find. 223.123.109.65 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no references and the article has failed to establish any notability. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rascal Does Not Dream. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Sakurajima[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like the same general issues as last AFD. There's been a bit of work, but seems to be an obscure and non-notable character page. References are largely blog lists of anime characters, rather than actual notability. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Redirect or merge to Rascal Does Not Dream per siroxo. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Rascal Does Not Dream as WP:ATD —siro χ o 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Siroxo. Article based on few passing mentions fails WP:SIGCOV, but best parts can be preserved in the article about the show or its list of characters if one is split off. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Heitzman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same concerns as the previous AFD, with the only sources providing barely even a passing mention. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Heitzman, which closed as a soft delete due to a lack of participation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- Non-notable artist with no significant coverage on the subject being discussed. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't changed since the last discussion. Definitely doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as the winner of both the 1987 and 1988 Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction/Set Direction/Scenic Design (see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0374779/awards/?ref_=nm_awd ; I will work on finding a better source to confirm and update the article) Was a WP:BEFORE search done by anyone in this discussion or the other one? Winning two Emmy Awards would certainly have produced some SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify one of the two Emmys to an offline ref and added that source to the article. That should be enough to satisfy ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I added sources for exhibits of the artist's work at the National Gallery of Art and the Museum of Modern Art; two of the most prestigious art museums in the United States. As such, the subject also passes criteria 4B of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One Emmy win is fine. two is gravy. Rest is extra gravy in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cited book "Inside Pee-Wee's Playhouse: The Untold, Unauthorized, and Unpredictable Story of a Pop Phenomenon" seems to give significant coverage over several pages. Emmy winner, included in exhibitions at the National Gallery of Art, the Museum Of Modern Art, and more. Elspea756 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Emmy Awards. Meets WP:ANYBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Beaton[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SPORTSPERSON. FatCat96 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG as stated above. Passing mentions made in four sources, no significant coverage of the subject. Delete per above. Tails Wx 01:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Ma'oz, Moshe; Rubin, Barry; Ginat, Joseph, eds. (1994). From war to peace: Arab-Israeli relations, 1973 - 1993 (1. publ ed.). Brighton: Sussex Acad. Press. ISBN 9781898723103.

[2] Klein, Menachem (March 2000). "The 'tranquil decade' re‐examined: Arab‐Israeli relations during the years 1957–67". Israel Affairs. 6 (3–4): 68–82. doi:10.1080/13537120008719572.

[3] Eisenberg, Laura Zittrain; Caplan, Neil (14 July 2010). Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00457-4.

[4] Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven L.; Telhami, Shibley (15 November 2012). "The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011". The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6586-4.

[5] Kostiner, Joseph (December 2009). "Saudi Arabia and the Arab–Israeli Peace Process: The Fluctuation of Regional Coordination". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 36 (3): 417–429. doi:10.1080/13530190903338946.

[6] Kaye, Dalia Dassa (29 March 2001). "Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 1991-1996". Beyond the Handshake. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50532-1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]