Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 12	January 14 >

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 merge‎ to Jeff Bonwick. Note this can be merged into the other articles also at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LZJB[edit]

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

Besides the provided paper in the article (where the subject is in the list of many other algorithms, doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV), I couldn't find any other reliable and independent sources covering this compression algorithm.

I suggest merging it either to Jeff Bonwick or LZRW. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the articles suggested by Deltaspace. I cannot find enough sourcing for this topic to merit its own article. But that doesn't mean it should be nuked off the wiki, it could do with a mention in another article. RetroCosmos (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to ZFS. This algorithm does crop up quite a lot in reliable sources, but only short snippets, discussed alongside the other compression algorithms available in ZFS. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We have 3 different Merge target articles suggested and we need to get that down to 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Per above: article does not merit its own. The system ZFS makes most sense here in my opinion. TLA (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeff Bonwick. The unifying characteristic between these articles is their creator, IMO. Jacona (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to draftify on editor request at any point in the future. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McLaughlin (sportswriter)[edit]

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

He exists and has had some coverage, but not the significance that would meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The available online sources don't meet WP:BIO, with the best being a brief obituary. The others are a notice of winning a minor AP award, quotations, and passing mentions. There's potential that offline or paywalled sources could put it over the line. I don't have access to McMurray, Bill: Texas High School Football, Icarus Press, 1985., or the obituary in his home paper: "Former chronicle staffer McLaughlin dies: [3 STAR edition]". (1997, Nov 26). Houston Chronicle. (ProQuest has only an excerpt.) If anyone has access to those two sources it could settle things more definitively. Jfire (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If there is a potential for offline sources to support notability, a move to draft will provide time for editors to recruit such sources. BD2412 T 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability tag was added in 2010. Editors have had fourteen years to recruit such sources. Draftifying seems unlikely to help. Jfire (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the only one interested in maintaining the article is his daughter, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire: If the article is left unedited in draftspace for six months, then it will automatically be deleted per G13. However, at least there will be an opportunity for improvement and resubmission for mainspace publication. BD2412 T 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief obituary outside his home area just isn't enough, and an obituary in the newspaper he used to work for is clearly not independent so not worth finding in full. I'm skeptical there is anything in this HS football book(?) either.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to be notability established here. Draftification just feels like delaying the inevitable deletion, unless an editor indicates interest in improving it, which I don't see here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other rationale for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Shape[edit]

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

~~There is some coverage, but I don't think it is enough to establish that they meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBAND. I've added content and references. Subject had album reviews, they toured Australia and their music was played on national radio.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is now properly referenced and satisfies the requirements of WP:NBAND. Dan arndt (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I am happy to be proved wrong, and have removed the notability tag too. Thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even those who argue to keep seem to generally agree that the sourcing for this article is thin. No indication of sufficient sourcing has been provided, so the delete arguments are substantially stronger on the merits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Spencer Lanthier[edit]

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

I stumbled across this article yet could not find WP:BLP-abiding sources for that topic on search engine. Therefore, I nominated here to generate discussion on to delete this unsourced biography. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Order of Canada meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" for notability. 99.253.42.249 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I later failed to find any significant coverage in secondary sources, which is why I started this deletion discussion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:ANYBIO also notes: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so would need to be backed up by non-primary WP:SIGCOV. I can see numerous run-of-the-mill news reports to substantiate a number of claims in the articles via newspapers.com (where the subject has achieved a new position), but not much in the way of secondary significant coverage. Curiously, there is not much coverage of the subject across the period 1999-2000, when he received the honour. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable. Order of Canada. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Order of Canada is an acceptable notability claim if the article can be sourced properly, but it is not so "inherently" notable that a subject would be exempted from having to have any reliable sourcing just because the article has the words "Order of Canada" in it. Even people with notability claims still have to have sourcing, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's borderline, but I think the Order of Canada and coverage of the failed 1999 KPMG/Arthur Andersen merger push it just over the line. I've added some sources to the article. Wall Street Journal also covered Lanthier's role in the failed merger. Jfire (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering he's a Member of the Order of Canada (the third tier), which seems to be the equivalent of a British MBE, certainly not a fast-track conferal of notability on Wikipedia. Being a CEO of an large accountancy firm wouldn't qualify him either. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sionk (talk). I wouldn't regard a British MBE as inherently a badge of notability, and I don't think this is, either. Athel cb (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small comment, the Order of Canada is not a political appointment, it is done via people being nominated (https://www.gg.ca/en/honours/canadian-honours/order-canada/nominate-someone) and an advisory committee reviews the individual or group. It is a high Canadian honour. YUL89YYZ (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in that case it's a higher honour than MBE, which is the lowest grade of the Order of the British Empire, lower even than OBE, which is sometimes said to stand for "Other Bugger's Effort". Athel cb (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we get to a consensus as to whether beign awarded a Member of the Order of Canada is sufficient for per se notability? Bearian (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Order of Canada isn't a well-known and significant award or honor as specified by WP:ANYBIO#1, I think we need to rewrite ANYBIO. It's surely sufficient per se for notability if you're of the line of thought that there are things that can make a person notable per se. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that the Order of Canada isn't a valid notability claim at all — but especially given that the subject was inducted only at the lowest "member" level, it isn't so "inherently" notable that the article merely having the words "Order of Canada" in it would be enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on more reliable sourcing than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I meant. Unless I'm much mistaken, you're of the line of thought that there are no things that can make a person notable per se, so you don't find this to sufficient. Others are happy to say "keep: passes WP:ANYBIO" in their AfD arguments. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more week's relisting. Right now, it looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Being a Member of the Order of Canada,. does not meet ANYBIO and there is no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV about the subject related to receiving this award. Also not seeing any WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth related to their business career. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the Order of Canada isn't considered "a well-known and significant award or honor" as specified by WP:ANYBIO#1, perhaps we should reconsider to abolish the rule ANYBIO. I don't harbor jealousy towards someone who has been awarded the OOC. Thanks. 1.47.195.61 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand how every NHL hockey player (here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Britz who played 8 games) has an article but the Order of Canada is not worthy or notable. It is much more difficult to get the Order of Canada. Not to vent (which I guess I am) but this has been one of the main reasons I no longer contribute to Wikipedia. YUL89YYZ (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Order of Canada can get an article if they're shown to pass GNG. It isn't the kind of award or honour where the mere presence of the words "Order of Canada" in the article would be sufficient to exempt a person from actually having to be sourced properly, but that's not the same thing as being "non-notable" at all. Like I said above, even people with valid notability claims still have to have valid GNG-worthy sourcing — the issue here isn't the notability or non-notability of the OC, it's the inadequacy of his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ANYBIO. I don't think it's fair to say that an ANYBIO pass needs "GNG sourcing": if they did, what would be the point of having ANYBIO? Rather, I think passing ANYBIO means they only needs "sufficient sourcing for verifiability." I think the distinction is subtle but relevant: "GNG sourcing" conveys, to me, 3+ proper WP:SIGCOV sources. That kind of sourcing is a notability slam-dunk. But if we have a subject with what asilvering calls per se notability, the subject is entitled to an article and that article can be written with information gleaned from non-independent sources or trivial mentions. I think a comparable situation might be WP:NAUTHOR; if someone has written several notable books, they are entitled to an article per NAUTHOR#3. That biographical article can then be written with sources like interviews, press releases, book prefaces, etc, none of which would have qualified as "GNG sourcing" on their own. Translating that to this case, if all we can write about Lanthier is a single sentence stating that he has an OOC, cited to the govt of Canada site, then I think ANYBIO means that is a stub we should have. Pleasantly, we can go beyond that. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was awarded an MOC (the lowest of the three levels), not a OOC (the middle level). I've participated in multiple AfDs where OBEs (the UK equivalent of the OOC) haven't been deemed sufficient to bestow notability, let alone MBEs (the equivalent of MOC, which are given to anyone from actors, charity fundraisers, teachers and crossing patrol officers). Yes, I agree that ANYBIO explaining or defining a bit better. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doom#Music. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doom music[edit]

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

nonexistent made-up term FMSky (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not too familiar with dab guidelines but pretty much all results are for the game Doom. Mach61 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doom, a disambiguation page which already has a Music section. (The Doom games are listed there too, and their soundtracks are covered in their articles.) Adam Sampson (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A real thing in musicology, used particularly in the writings of heavy metal musicologist M. Selim Yavuz. (Ask, and I can link specific sources, but they appear on the first page of Google Scholar.) This makes it a viable search term. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an appropriate disambiguation page though? It's currently "disambiguating" between zero same-named items. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it refers to multiple styles of music. Yavuz uses it to discuss gothic/doom metal, but it also can refer to dark wave music. However, my main point is that it's an actual term. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doom#Music, which already lists the terms users might be looking for if they search for this. Hatman31 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reason not to group the items together in a larger listing. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSSJ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a bit older than many other DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations (it was a 2015 purchase, rather than a brand-new authorization around that time), but the fact that no attempt at an article was made before 2020 — towards the end of the more lax "notability standards" in the topic area — would certainly appear to nonetheless be a good hint that the requisite significant coverage is lacking. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to note this but forgot: this is also a technical survivor of that failed bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Thanks for pointing out the previous AFD that makes it ineligible for Soft Deletion so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any WP:GNG sources here. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flores (author)[edit]

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

Quite borderline, but doesn't seem to go over WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Games, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatbor Kendriya Natya Samaj[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Assam. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilu Khan[edit]

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

Reasons: 1. References are weak 2. No mentionable award. 3. No significant contribution. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly routine coverage or interviews; doesn't fulfill WP:GNG. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 19:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has dedicated reliable sources coverage such as here and interviews in national newspapers referenced in the article such as here , passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review sources proposed by Atlantic306 vs GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Renaissance as an WP:ATD. The Dhaka Courier article is significant coverage, but the interview based articles do not support notability. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As @Ayakanaa explains, it fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SUSTAINED, it doesn't fall in line with WP:GNG due to such. Noorullah (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet but leaning toward Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a member of Souls and Renaissance, meets criterion #5 of WP:MUSICBIO. Renaissance is not a suitable redirect target because of his participation in a second independently notable ensemble. Atlantic306 and SailingInABathTub have singled out the Dhaka Courier article. There is also Bengali-language significant coverage, such as [1]. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W05DK-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The claimed RabbitEars source for the (numerous national) networks carried does not actually mention any of those — or any other — network. FCC records seem to suggest this has, at most, ever only been a construction permit. We've been purging low-power stations that do at least somewhat verifiably exist but merely lack significant coverage (many of them stations from a 2009–2010 window only coming on the air in the 2010s or 2020s with nothing but national programming — and this article does claim to be one of those) — this station does not appear to meet even that. (CPs like these are almost more like the TV station equivalent to the GNIS-sourced non-places that have also seen a parade of AfDs lately.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiyamiyu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated in 2016 and no consensus was reached. It has been over 7 years and no significant improvements have been made. There is no evidence that this name is notable; it fails WP:NNAME. It is poorly written, poorly sourced and goes into excessive detail about familial members. Being "unique" is not grounds for notability, as the author argued in the first nomination, and their argument seems to oppose WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history and usage of a name is notable in and of itself. Add references and improve as necessary; do not delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A name is not inherently notable, and as noted above, the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDICT. I can't seem to find any reliable sources establishing notability, either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, any thoughts on this? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NNAME (if there are no notable bearers of the name, it doesn't merit an article) or at the very least WP:TNT. The only people I can find who are even remotely close to notability are Tiyamiyu Oluwagbemiga, mentioned in passing as the predecessor of Ibrahim Lamorde as Director of Operations and Strategy of the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Tiyamiyu Kazeem, a footballer formerly with Remo Stars F.C.[2] Also, nothing of any use is properly sourced. The etymology is unsourced; in fact, the Media Trust reference gives a different one: "'Tiyamiyu' is from the name a town 'Tihamah' in Arabia." All in all, a big eyesore. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U1DB[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick google search revealed at least two reliable and independent sources with significant coverage: this and this. And it's not developed by some random developers, it's from Canonical. I'm not saying that it should inherit notability from the company, but I think that the sources I provided here allow the subject to meet WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZFW-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Slough (Kingsbury County, South Dakota)[edit]

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

This should meet WP:GEOLAND, but I couldn't establish that it does, or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota). Both are notable because they feature prominently in the enormously popular Little House on the Prairie books, and a quick google search turns up numerous proposals by local governments to further develop them as tourist attractions on that basis, which I will add to the article.
Silver Lake and Big Slough are hydrologically connected (an article in the Brookings Register even refers to Big Slough as "the upper part of Silver Lake." No cultural or geographical reason to have them in two separate articles IMO, but it shouldn't be completely deleted either. Jbt89 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jbt89. The articles in the article demonstrate notability for Silver Lake, but not necessarily enough for a stand-alone article for Big Slough yet. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Jbt89 would indeed be the best choice, since Silver Lake is notable enough.TH1980 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically, I suspect from the poor sources that I've encountered (non-experts quoting an unidentified third party) that it's the other way around: the lake is just how far the slough happens to be filled up at the time. I've looked for documentation on the Madison Wetland Management District and the more local Waterfowl Production Area, and I've yet to find anything concrete about the hydrology of the slough at all, or the lake for that matter.
This robotic import of geographic data is ludicrous sometimes, by the way. The coördinates for Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota) robotically added in Special:Diff/501168550 are in the middle of De Smet and not of the lake at all.
Uncle G (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lochana Munda[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Indian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches were trivial mentions. The same goes for the sources in the article, as well. I also searched her name in Odia (ଲୋଚାନା ମୁଣ୍ଡା), though I can't be sure the translations were 100 percent correct. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of One[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see at WP:NBAND, the only criteria this article would be going for would be the first one - unfortunately, I just don't think that the short mention in a BBC article and the Room Thirteen references (potentially self-published sources) club together to show notability. Internet searches don't throw up any missing coverage either, so not even much potential for me to quickly improve it. Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Animorphs books. Mz7 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Visitor (Applegate novel)[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE search did not produce sources that showed significant coverage of this individual work. PROD tag was removed by Espresso Addict, so pinging them. Recommend that this be a redirect to List of Animorphs books. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per nom, it's by a prolific and successful author but there's no claim to notability made (it's primarily a very lengthy plot summary). I can only find a couple of blog reviews, which wouldn't count towards notability. Sionk (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a claim of a graphic novel version, which would seem to support individual notability of this title. If no-one can find reviews, not opposed to redirect with the history preserved. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to the entry for this work at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, there are multiple translations, and a review in Yarf! The Journal of Applied Anthropomorphics #45. Also, the graphic novel version was reported on by Screenrant. Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual articles in the Animorphs series, which is a broader discussion about deleting specific animorphs books in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Animorphs books - I am not finding any reviews for either the original release of the book nor the much later graphic novel adaptation. While there is some coverage of the graphic novel series, these appear to be on the series as a whole rather than reviews of this book in specific. The original release of the book was well before the time that online reviews were a thing, so there might very well be some physical reviews out there, and if any are found, please ping me. But if none are found, the book does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, and should be redirected to the main book list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Gu-nam[edit]

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

No evidence provided as to his significance outside of team, article also not fleshed out and unlikely to be in future toobigtokale (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only 10 professional matches, poorly sourced. If the athlete's career resumes to this, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I don’t see neither enough coverage nor WP:Nexist or WP:Basic. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cazzolla Gatti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roberto Cazzolla Gatti

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

As mentioned in the talk (also some time ago by other users) it is a clearly self-promotional autobiography. Even the list of sources posted in the talk (probably by the subject himself) is made just of press releases and some interviews. I went through all the links and no source seems to attest that the guy is particularly notable in his field. He is a researcher with a good number of papers but to consider him particularly notable we should agree that almost every ecology professor with enough years of experience is particularly notable. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he is notable, this article would need to be rewritten from scratch to focus on what reliable independent sources have said. Right now half of it is unsourced and the other half is a laundry list of his publications. Jfire (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS cites, although in a highly cited field. However, the BLP is over-weight for the importance of its subject and should be culled by 75%. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep.I have noticed that those who claim for a deletion of the page may be interested (with a conflict) in safeguarding the self-interest (an Italian competing institution) and companies that are mentioned in the voice and are criticized by this author's research studies (such as palm oil industry and deforestation-linked companies). 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.184.31 (talk)

Can you kindly provide any proof of this statement? Thanks! Rupertsciamenna (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper that is moderately cited does not convince me of much... After discounting such papers, it definitely looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2013 PhD and current associate professor. A brief mention in a listicle does not get to GNG. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment made by a professor of a minor Slovenian university that has 1/3 of the publications and the H-index (and less than 2000 citations!) compared to the author that he propose to delete looks frankly ridiculous. 137.204.150.11 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is ever an article about me, then you can feel free to nominate it for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep away from ad hominem attacks, anonymous editor. Qflib (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jfire autobiography needs to be rewritten—I have no prejudice against a recreation of this article by a neutral editor. And I would like to add that I am a person with zero publications and zero citations. RetroCosmos ^talk 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Very few secondary sources can be found, and most of his citations are not from articles where he is first author. No significant awards either, despite the long list in the page. --Broc (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't see in the article that this athlete coached sportspeople who won Olympic awards or championships. If you want to work on this if Draft space, let me know. But it has to go through WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Abu Samaan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bilal Abu Samaan

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

I was unable to find adequate coverage and any info on him winning anything. The SPORTSPERSON and NATH is questionable. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is in Arabic, and there are references in English as well! Bilal is the coach of the Palestinian national athletics team, and represented Palestine in many international tournaments. It meets the criteria of notability.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify which criteria for notability, as outlined in our rules, it satisfies? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NATH. Zanahary (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:NATH, there is a clause that says: Coaches who have coached many notable athletes, including at least one non-relay Olympic medalist, World champion, or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments.

Referring to the article, the Palestinian team, which was coached by Bilal, won the silver medal in the athletics delegation in Sharm El-Sheikh.

He also "was the official coach of the Palestine Olympic track and field team." — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article talks about a well-known sports figure in Palestine. He is the international coach of the Palestine Olympic Games and long track team. He won the gold medal in the Olympic Games tournaments in Sharm El-Sheikh, and he represents Palestine in international sports competitions.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not well known. He has no proper coverage. There is no info on any medals. And he doesn't comply with the Wikipedia rules. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate !vote. What even is "the gold medal in the Olympic Games tournaments in Sharm El-Sheikh"? Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion around scope, refocusing article etc. can continue on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for the destruction of Israel[edit]

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

Please don't shoot the messenger. This article is a summary WP:POVFORK of various tangentially-related pages and is full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For example, "so-and-so body says X." Then, "Palestinians do XX", which is implied as a violation of the previous sentence. The entire article is like this. WP:TNT. We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Incitement to genocide, Palestinian political violence, Palestinian genocide accusation, Zionist entity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, Second Holocaust... I simply do not see what was the need of another article saying what so many others do. Wikipedia does not fragmentise other conflicts to this excessive degree. It makes navigating articles about this topic needlessly confusing. Crampcomes (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Owen× ☎ 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to pass WP:GNG. starship .paint (RUN) 02:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint the problem here is that this article covers the same topic as Anti-Zionism, making it a WP:CFORK. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the topic area grants some leniency in matters of CFORK. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. starship .paint (RUN) 23:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's that Afd got to do with anything? Where does policy say "leniency" is granted? Can you explain what is the difference in the topic between "calls for the destruction of Israel" and "anti-zionism" (defined as opposition to the existence of Israel in its current form). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is adequately sourced. TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What pages do you contend this is a fork of? PrimaPrime (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Antisemitism in the Arab world, Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Incitement to genocide, Palestinian political violence, Palestinian genocide accusation, Zionist entity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, Second Holocaust...Crampcomes (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics being related or overlapping somewhat doesn't make this article a fork; that would be if we already had a page like Opposition to Israel's existence.

I agree that this conflict area has spawned a lot of articles focusing on rather trivial individual aspects thereof, and it might be better to merge some of them into longer and more general pages, but that's not an AFD question so long as each article in question does cover a distinctly notable topic. Maybe start a discussion over at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration? PrimaPrime (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimaPrime this page is a fork of anti-zionism. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you just redirected that former redlink to your preferred topic does nothing to bolster your case. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sensitivity of the subject is understandable, but the article discusses a recurring social phenomenon. The charge must be for scope neutrality, not for deletion. Svartner (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Svartner. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wasn't there a RFC on this question less than six months ago? פעמי-עליון (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. The AfD justification is word-for-word the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel, an article created by the nominator. In this case, the justification has nothing to do with the article nominated. For example, there's nothing in this article about the "Palestinians do X," or is this article a WP:POVFORK of any article. What are the article-specific examples of a policy-based justification for AfD? This reads as WP:Tendentious

Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed that the opening phrase of both was first (I assume) recently used by myself in an impulsive random patrol AfD in this topic area that was closed as speedy keep without votes…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks to be a WP:FORK of anti-zionism. Can someone explain to me what is the difference between calling for Israel's destruction (article currently at AfD) and for opposing Israel's existence (anti-zionism)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I support delete or redirect to Anti-Zionism. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are two separate concepts, unfortunately muddied in today's politicized discourse where the meaning of ideas doesn't matter anymore. Longhornsg (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the difference. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic in its own right.

Per Svartner, I agree more or less completely with them.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PrimaPrime. -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there is a clear GNG (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a lot more discussion about this at Talk:Anti-Zionism#Possible content fork. It looks unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. VR does ask a valid question about the difference between Anti-Zionism and Calls for the destruction of Israel that I don't think either article makes clearly enough, so hopefully this discussion will prompt someone to make that difference clearer. (I can't edit either article, so I can't do it myself yet!) Ironic (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also note Legitimacy of the State of Israel, which is the only article of its kind in the entire encyclopedia. François Robere (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most neutral, but not bad enough to need deleting. Definitely a notable topic. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Hassan Sharif[edit]

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

Does not meet the minimum requirements of WP:Notability. Coverage is almost solely about the death and the event itself doesn't appear to satisfy WP:LASTING. Appears to be a simple murder and that's it. Noah, AA^Talk 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM. No assertion of other notability. If coverage continues over a period of months, an article about the shooting might be appropriate, but it's too soon for that yet. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only brief coverage because of his murder. Johndavies837 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a WP:BIO1E (and WP:NOTNEWS) case. If a few months from now there is still news coverage of the murder, it may be appropriate to create a page about the murder then. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VICTIM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Masjid Muhammad, where he was Imam and where he was shot. Certainly relevant to that article. Djflem (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki. Daniel (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki (Sword Art Online)[edit]

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

Like Leafa. I also don't see a single reliable source that talks about Yuuki, but mostly are passing mentions at game reviews. WP:BEFORE shows nothing at Google, but listicles/rankings + sources in the article regarding the merchandise featuring her doesn't discuss the character at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom, reception is pretty sparse, and is not inherited from notability of the work itself. GNG is not met here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that it should be maintained and improved because it leads to many reviews. 200.68.140.49 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, anonymous user! If you meant to vote keep, please write a comment like this:

Keep because reason. 1.1.1.1.1.1. (talk) 01:01, 1, January 20XX (UTC) QuietCicada - Talk 15:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – it is not the strongest but the sources do demonstrate that GNG is met. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki where a section fully describing the character already exists. Discounting the numerous, obviously unreliable sources (there is a Reddit post being used as a source and described as a "critical response" for crying out loud), there is very little in the way of sources that discuss the character in what would be considered significant coverage. She is mentioned in general reviews/summaries of the series, but none of those go into much detail or analysis on her specifically that would allow her to pass the WP:GNG. As the article is poorly sourced in general, and the main character list already has a full description of the character, I don't really see the need for anything beyond a Redirect in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost anything has reception. The problem is whether it is reliable or significant (it usually isn't). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the major characters of a notable publication, the reference covers the topic in-depth and not passing mention [3] --PeaceNT (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If you squint really hard Kotaku might clear GNG on a technicality, but the source doesn't discuss the character, it simply regurgitates what the character did. No other source present in the article is sufficient. The only other source I can find that was halfway decent was [4], but it has less coverage than the Kotaku article and has the same problem. If someone can find WP:THREE sources I am more than happy to re-evaluate. —Sirdog (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another link but in Spanish: https://areajugones.sport.es/anime/sword-art-online-asi-es-la-habitacion-del-mayor-fan-de-yuuki-konno/ 187.133.105.115 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing that source using Google translate shows it's an article that showcases someone's room that has a lot of Yuuki/Sword Art Online merchandise. Power to the fan, but it is a far cry from anything complaint to demonstrate notability. —Sirdog (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source but still I agree to Keep: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/05/sword-art-onlines-fourth-arc-is-both-heartbreaking-and-beautiful/ . 187.133.105.115 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion. It's not my intent to sway you. The Kotaku article I already addressed why I found it unsatisfactory in my initial comment. —Sirdog (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/sword-art-online-last-recollection-strikes-us-in-feels-brings-yuuki-back and https://www.kotaku.com.au/?s=Asuna+Yuuki There are more sources but I prefer to leave it like this because my intention is not to convince you either. 187.133.105.115 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://japantruly.com/es/nombres-japoneses-caracteres-arte-de-espada-en-linea/ This link may help. 187.133.105.115 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. This afd was apparently being canvassed. After scrutinizing most of the sources, most were trivial. 2001:4455:613:5800:6479:7808:5E7C:7C86 (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaan Baksho[edit]

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

An internet radio station and record label that shows no signs of meeting WP:NCORP notability criteria that I can find. Sionk (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. TLA (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate, Desher Barta looks independent? IgelRM (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much improved. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas Pati: Hutan Mati[edit]

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

Not notable. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources. At the very very least, redirect to Indonesian horror where it is mentioned twice with a source.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - works by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Punjabi are substantial contributions to the Indonesian Horror genre and are notable.JarrahTree 12:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lincolnshire loop line. The best P&G-related arguments below are for merge, with Sirfurboy's summation the most persuasive with sufficient support to be deemed a consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skellingthorpe railway station (Great Northern Railway)[edit]

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

Very shortlived railway station near a village in Lincolnshire, England. Information about it is already available in the Skellingthorpe and Skellingthorpe railway station (Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway) articles. Considering it's only sourced to a directory of dates and owners, a map, a blog and an eBay listing, I doubt very much this meets notability criteria. There's no automatic notability for railway stations/halts, as far as I'm aware. I'd suggest at best it's redirected to Skellingthorpe (unless the railway station(s) article is un-disambiguated). Sionk (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNR and LD&ECR stations were not just different stations, they were on different lines. The GNR station was on the line between Lincoln and Gainsborough (which is still open); the LD&ECR station was on the line between Lincoln and Tuxford (which closed some years ago). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my opening remarks, there's no automatic notability for railway stations. Are you saying the article should be kept simply because the station existed? Sionk (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a clique in this subject area which believes that train stations are automatically notable, despite the RfC that was held which explicitly showed a clear consensus that this is not the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Skellingthorpe~~ Lincolnshire loop line as an AtD if GNG is not satisfied. The only old newspaper coverage I've found is incidental and there needs to be additional sources providing WP:SIGCOV to pass the GNG. I have found a reference to a station of this name in 1852 in the Lincolnshire Chronicle, in respect of transportation of potatoes to London. It's presumably this one in the absence of another Skellingthorpe, and it does seem likely when the other stations on the line were opened in 1849 that this one was also; it could mean it was only a goods station not a passenger station before 1865. Rupples (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Amended. Rupples (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative redirect which links to a railway article rather than the village is Lincolnshire loop line. Rupples (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is probably not a railway station in the UK that doesn't have enough written about it to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Likely to be documented on books/newspapers not online Garuda3 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if sources are put up in this discussion e.g. names of books, magazines, journals where it's likely this station has coverage in order to assess whether GNG could be met. I'm willing to reassess but not on assertions of WP:MUSTBESOURCES with no supporting evidence. Rupples (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, as none of the keep voters have shown any evidence of their purported sources which totally exist but we can't see. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we must redirect, Lincolnshire loop line would be much more suitable than Skellingthorpe. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Changing my recommendation. Rupples (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk would you agree to change your suggested redirect target to Lincolnshire loop line? Rupples (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be equally happy with a redirect to Lincolnshire loop line. The later replacement station on the LDEC railway seems much more pertinent to the village. The short-lived GNR station seems to be no more than a 'halt' Sionk (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lincolnshire loop line. We are 5 days in and no secondary sources have been presented to establish this meets GNG, and stations are not, by consensus, presumed notable in WP:NGEO (per WP:NTRAINSTATION). I did search too and found nothing appropriate. Arguments that sources should exist will not do at AfD. If they exist, the discussion is here for them to be presented. If they cannot be found, the page should be deleted. Redirect is a useful ATD, however - taking a reader to appropriate information about the line the station served. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RC Yangiyer[edit]

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

I was considering just redirecting this database entry to List of rugby clubs in Uzbekistan but, to be honest, every club in that list seems to have serious notability issues so I may well need to nominate them all separately for deletion anyway and then the unsourced list itself would become redundant. The only source seems to be a forum post written by someone who manages rugby in Uzbekistan. This would not be a reliable or independent source and searches in Uzbek and English do not yield any decent sources at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tartu Rugby Klubi Lelo[edit]

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

The Estonian Wikipedia article doesn't contain any significant independent coverage and my own searches found nothing better than directory entries like E-business Register. I can't see any passing of WP:GNG here and a rugby club simply existing does not automatically make it notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Grech[edit]

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

Seems to currently be a postdoc/lecturer, with some early career awards and a decent amount of citations, but don't think meets WP:NPROF. Co-founded a company (Dedaub), but I didn't see enough independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is a high-citation field, so even though he has three publications with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar [5], I think that is not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1. Additionally, they are all on cryptocurrency-related projects, so we should maybe also consider WP:NCRYPTO, which sets a higher bar for notability in this area (although not specifically for biographies). None of the rest rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cause I don't think this passes PROF. In addition, I think this is a paid creation. Kj cheetham, did you see Mihir Bhatt? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we proceed with the deletion 78.133.60.29 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A patrolling admin will process it after 7 days from this discussion being opened. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers RFC[edit]

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

Unsourced page of non-notable local club. Broc (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Caribbean. Broc (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners RFC[edit]

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

Unsourced page of non-notable local club. Broc (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Caribbean. Broc (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renegades RFC[edit]

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

Unsourced page of non-notable local club. Broc (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Caribbean. Broc (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and there doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kins Ferna's[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Rejected at AFC, moved to main space by creator, bringing here for community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all editors and wikipedia administrators, I moved the artist's page to the main page and now the page has been sent for deletion. I would like to contribute to this page with some editors who have available Edmilsonreis2321 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator or editor has responded to me regarding this article to date. Edmilsonreis2321 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed this article, I think an article in the encyclopedia is more likely to be improved every day than an article in draft. So I came to appeal to all Wikipedia administrators and editors and other members of Wikipedia to come and contribute and debate about this article. Edmilsonreis2321 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No RS sourcing used now in the article, I can't find any sourcing about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no Portuguese article to translate from, the Afrikanns article uses wikis or blogs for sourcing, so still nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS available, and I can't find anything significant online. Cited sources are mostly dead links, and the ones that aren't do not seem to be reliable. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I've seen an article here on Wikipedia without any source cited, but okay, I understand, we're going to send the article for deletion since it's not qualified for an encyclopedia. Edmilsonreis2321 (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 4). Had been one prior, and there's no explanation provided about the ambigulous name. If that proves to be an issue, can be solved with a DAB Star Mississippi 14:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Summers[edit]

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

Article is about a contestant in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 4) (she was eliminated first), all sources are about the programme, not specifically about Summers. Online news is dominated by another Alisa Summers from Florida (not related) and I can't find anything about Summers that's not about her participation in RuPaul's Drag Race. Suggest the article is redirected to the Series 4, similarly to the treatment of most attempted Wikipedia articles about contestants in reality TV. Sionk (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect because of the ambiguous name. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is not an "ambiguous name" on the google search results. This page was originally a redirect for Season 4 - and should still be since Alisa is not relevant outside of the show / season to justify her own page.Burnberrytree (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect fails notability guidelines, was a redirect, so better redirect it to the original target. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: It's better to leave it to redirect insteada of deletion. There's barely any sources about her outside from the drag competition series. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 13:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect serves a purpose and the page history should be preserved. Also, this is the request of User:JuanGLP, who made recent edits. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats#Football. Concerns raised about this being a viable ATD seem to have been addressed Star Mississippi 14:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats football team[edit]

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

Subject does not pass the WP:NSEASONS with all of the sources in the article being primary. Unremarkable season at the NAIA level, didn't win a championship or bowl game. PROD was declined. Let'srun (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: You de-prodded this as an "easy GNG pass", but all of the sources in the article are self-published game summaries from IWU and thus not WP:INDY. Did you have other sourcing in mind when you de-prodded? Cbl62 (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A google search does turn up this item from the Indianapolis Star. A Newspapers.com search turns up a few brief game summaries such as this, this, and this, all from the same outlet. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first article seemed to me like it would be a good source for the Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats#Football, as it is more about the formation of the program than anything else. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with User:Let'srun that the first IndyStar source I linked above is more about the start of the program as a whole, not so much specific to the 2018 team. That leaves the brief game blurbs from the IndyStar. Given that this is an NAIA team (i.e., the fifth and lowest rung of college football) and it compiled a relatively ordinary 7–3 record with no post-season play, I don't believe the brief game blurbs warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats#Football - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV largely per Cbl62’s analysis. Could be a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in such cases are a mistake. When a reader looks at the team navbox (Template:Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats football navbox), a redirect fills in a redlink and creates the impression that a season article exists. Our general practice in the college football project has long been against creating such redirects for seasons where no article exists and we are simply redirecting to the overarching program article. Where no stand-alone article exists for either the particlar year (or a "decade" or "coaching tenure" article), the redlink should remain. Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful on whether a redirect is reasonable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my opposition to redirect, we have carefully avoided redirects such as this. Such redirects disrupt the functionality of team templates such as this: Template:Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats football navbox. By filling in the redlink for 2018, a redirect would (i) suggest inaccurately that a season article exists for the 2018 team, (ii) likely lead others to believe that even more season articles for this low-level, NAIA program are appropriate and desirable (they are not). Further, the team template already includes a link to the overall program article, and repeating the link over and over for each year provides no net benefit whatsoever. 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Cbl62, low-level play does not need individual season articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats#Football. A redirect at this title would be more than reasonable if it were created independently of this discussion, and there is material found at that page about the 2018 season of this team, so I think that it makes sense to redirect it there. That some templates don't like this is a problem with the templates, not with the existence of the redirect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is false to assert that the main page has material about the 2018 team. This fifth-division football program began operating in 2018 and that bare fact is mentioned in the main article. But there is no information whatsoever about the 2018 team or its results, players, highlights, etc. Redirecting breaks a system we have carefully cultivated for the past decade, and with no good reason whatsoever. Cbl62 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is false to assert that the main page has material about the 2018 team is untrue. There, quite plainly, is a results table that includes the 2018 team in it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan Wildcats#Football per above and WP:CHEAP. Alvaldi (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srbija FF[edit]

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

This football club has always played on lower tiers, and does not seem to meet any established notability guidelines. Its home city, Stockholm, is not a viable merge target, but maybe Swedish Serbs. Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. No suitable location for a redirect. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any coverage I can find when looking in the archives I have access to is routine minor events or match reports. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The club doesn't even appear to exist today. There is no encyclopedic content for this. Svartner (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in Mediearkivet, which collects most contemporary Swedish newspaper articles. Can't find any other sources to base an article on. /Julle (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other rationale for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragedy of Agbezuge[edit]

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

This book gets a brief index mention on the 1994 UNESCO collection of representative works, which suggests notability, but searching for the English and Ewe titles I can’t find any third party sources discussing - no reviews, nothing in scholarly literature about fiction of the period, or indeed anything else. Can anyone else find anything? Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Africa, and Ghana. Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This work is notable as the first novel in the Ewe language and has received scholarly study as such. Here are sources:

Awoonor, Kofi (1975). The breast of the Earth : a survey of the history, culture and literature of Africa south of the Sahara. Internet Archive. New York : Nok Publishers International. p. 138–140. ISBN 978-0-88357-019-7. One of the most prolific of the relatively younger writers is Sam Obianim, whose novel Amegbeto (Man) is very well known throughout the Ewe country... Amegbeto is a sentimental story of man's suffering in a wicked world and his undying faith in God. It is also the story of a journey from rags to riches and back to degradation and sorrow. Agbezuge is the heroic, humble, persevering, trusting Christian man, who in spite of brief moments of doubt accepts the faith of the Church and the irrevocable and implacable nature of his destiny.
Ricard, Alain (2005). "La publication de la littérature africaine en traduction" (PDF). IFAS Working Paper Series / Les Cahiers de l’ IFAS (in French) (6): 58–62. Machine translation: I then campaigned, the term is strong, but chosen on purpose, for the publication by Karthala of a novel translated from the Ewe, Agbezuge, the first and greatest, for its admirers, of the Ewe novels (Obianim, 1949). Written in 1948, well known in Ghana and among the Ewe who read their language, this text circulated in Togo, but was not translated. I formed a team with Simon Amegbleame, Martin Ahiavee and Senouvo Agbota Zinsou who undertook the translation of this text. Simon Amegbleame was the project manager of this company. The three translators with the support of UNESCO – under the program of representative works – have produced a text which arouses the support of its readers French as I was able to verify. However, they find it difficult to believe that this translation into French was made directly from Ewe and that there are no such translations from Ewe into no European language. In short, the image of literature printed in an African language clashes our representations of Africa. The text published almost twenty years ago was, in its own way, a success: his praise of the misfortunes of virtue appeared welcome, in short moral and realistic. There is in these first novels a new force: the world is reconfigured thanks to an appropriation of Christianity, but there is never any question of proselytism.
Amegbleame, Simon Agbeko (2007). "Amegbetoa alo Agbezuge le nutinya de sam obianim (éwé, 1949) : une quête exaltée de l'humain". L'effet roman: Arrivée du roman dans les langues d'Afrique (in French). Editions L'Harmattan. p. 167–179. ISBN 9782296165021. This is a scholarly monograph on the work. Subsections: Le text et son histoire, Le statut de l'œvre, L'univers d'Amegbetoa, Une rhétorique de l'écriture.

Jfire (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "best known" Ewe language novel, "considered a classic of Ewe literature"...appears more frequently in searches under the French title: "Amegbetoa; ou, Les aventures d'Agbezuge": ON THE POWERS AND LIMITS OF LITERATURE see pp27-28, "le plus connu des romans ewe, Amegbetoa ou les aventures d’Agbezuge, de Sam Obianim (Karthala, 1990)", Histoire des Togolais. Des origines aux années 1960 p.191. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Littératures d'Afrique noire: des langues aux livres p. 115 - French is the only European language to which the text has been translated. It would appear that the current English title is misnamed; if consensus is to keep, probably should be moved. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as there plainly are sources I didn’t find. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. Star Mississippi 14:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Surankote[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching my vote to Redirect. Good options would be Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya or Surankote (town). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BGYO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JL Toreliza[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV,WP:BIO. No standalone notability outside band. Refs constitute the band and clickbait and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info back to BGYO for now per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO, where he's a member of. Not enough independent coverage about him outside the band. SBKSPP (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Günther Victor, Prince of Schwarzburg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mathilde of Schönburg-Waldenburg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recently created genealogical entry. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Günther Victor, Prince of Schwarzburg (her son) per WP:ATD rather than delete. Ingratis (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Günther Victor, Prince of Schwarzburg for reasons above. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Günther Victor, Prince of Schwarzburg#Biography per above. Keivan.f^Talk 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings[edit]

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

News story, fails WP:NEVENTS. No significant coverage, only contemporary news coverage of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Subject falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö school stabbing[edit]

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

News story, fails WP:NEVENTS. No significant coverage, only contemporary news coverage of the event and contemporary news coverage of the sentencing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Sweden. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient and lasting world wide coverage. This was the "Second deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history". Hardly a run of the mill crime/news story. Inexpiable (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Inexpiable. There's been some continued coverage after sentencing too. [6] [7] [8] AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StraitsX Singapore Dollar[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and is a little WP:TOOSOON. Sources online are all primary or are noted for not being reliable WP:NCRYPTO Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Singapore. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. All primary and WP:TOOSOON. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per criterion G3. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ‎[reply]

1st Decamillennium[edit]

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

It has zero sources. It seems unlikely to get any; there isn't even a page for the concept of a "decamillennium". I draftified it but the creator brought it right back to article space. AntiDionysius (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to merge, and while I suppose there might be an argument to redirect to Detailed logarithmic timeline or timeline of the far future or something related, I just have a hard time believing that anyone is going to search using this, which leaves deletion as the only suitable option. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A108:2D79:9941:4429 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Indian English takes over primary status for the next 8 thousand years it would surely be a decilahkennium anyway. ☺
"decamillennium" is not a neologism, but as mentioned no-one yet really demarcates history by this specific decamillennium, whose start point is proleptic and ahistoric and whose end point is speculative. We have Category:Millennia with articles for the ways in which people do demarcate history.
When people write of decamillennia, a quick search indicates, they are writing of things happening 10ka ago or of things that happen once in such a length of time, not about this specific time period. The turn of the year 10,000 gets some attention, but that's not because it's a time period, and we already have the much-misnamed millennium bug for dealing with that.
Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Engine[edit]

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

Neither video game engine is mentioned in the two articles, making it unnecessary soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Ugalde[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a Costa Rican women's footballer. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were transactional announcements, a story about the subject contracting COVID, and a story about the subject responding to fan insults. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Costa Rica. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Delete, I feel like you might be able to claim that she passes GNG with the coronavirus and fan insults articles if you also count the sources already on the page. However, I those look like databases and, in my opinion, should count to notability as much as a mention. This one is really borderline though. ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edilma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated in 2010 with no participation. There are no Wikipedia articles about people with this name, and it has no WP:SIGCOV, so therefore fails WP:NNAME. I can't find sufficient reliable sources establishing notability, either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one source cited is one of those automated statistics-regurgitating WWW sites, and does not even support the claims in the article in any case. The source says nothing about Greek, for example. The earlier completely different article content that went through AFD the first time was challenged as false after standing unsourced for 7 years in Special:Diff/469708490. I can find no good supporting source for either form of the article. As far as I can tell, the article is false in both forms that it has had in its 18 year history, and I cannot find a good source for anything true to say about this subject. I don't trust Bruce Lansky's book because I do not think that it is either expert-written or expert-sourced. If the claim were true, classicists would have documented this name for centuries, and they have not. Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece, Spain, and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a given name. The claim that ‘The origin of the name Edilma is Greek and means “Remains Young”. Edilma comes from the Greek Edelia’ doesn't seem true/or verifiable; and I don't know (I am Greek) of any Greek name "Eledia", ancient or modern, or any other meaning "Remains Young". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names so fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and no current bearers of the name in Wikipedia per Special:AllPages/Edilma. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sword Art Online characters#Leafa which also preserves the history should Japanese-language sourcing proving accessible and sufficient Star Mississippi 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leafa[edit]

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

I don't see a single reliable source that talks about Leafa, but mostly are passing mentions at game reviews. WP:BEFORE shows nothing at Google, but listicles/rankings. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BEFORE News search should have found CBR, and GameRant, which may both be derided as "listicles" but show continuing coverage: most of the links in the article are from 2015; these are both from 2023. CBR again with a critique of her--and only her--costumes from 2020. More listicles abound. As tacky as the bikini-clad figurines are, they are real-world products based off of one of the shallowest and most annoying characters in one Anime. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good BEFORE search would have ignored such low-level sourcing as poor indicators of notability on their own, so no issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Despite opinions to the contrary, these sources cover this sort of topic, so discussing how and to what extent they do is absolutely part of BEFORE. "I found nothing ... but listicles/rankings" is not a credible summary, as listicles are entirely capable of counting towards GNG unless source snobbery is now a part of N. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. They're listicles from some of the worst churnalism websites. If you like talking about them, go for it, but there's no room for faulting the nominator on doing a BEFORE search and not reporting back about them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling, even against websites, isn't an argument. The reason for a BEFORE to articulate the best sources found, even if they suck, is that gives everyone else a starting point. A well done BEFORE demonstrates coverage or lack thereof, rather than asserts it. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just "name calling against websites" (???). There's a Wikiproject-level consensus that these sorts of websites don't contribute to notability. Instead of continually trying to lecture me, try getting yourself up to speed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur; one of those sources even has no demonstration of notability, it's merely a recounting of facts about the character, which could only reasonably be used to cite information. Listicles aren't an inherent problem, the problem is using listicles that may as well say nothing as far as notability is concerned. - - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It reads like written from a fan perspective, talking about the most minor stuff. I am not convinced by numerous CBR listicles that this is an independently notable character. My main question is how in the world it even stuck around so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only counting multiple CBR listicles as one source for GNG purposes, and the costumes one is probably the most in-depth treatment. The others from CBR just show continuing coverage. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zx, somewhat. I'll add I'm not against Valnet lists being used, but if they're discussing the work and not just reiterating how they play or their role. Give us something examining the character and giving thoughts on them. That doesn't seem to be present here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ - Not only are most of the sources just listicles, but they are largely ones that just list the entire main cast of the series, which does not really do much to indicate notability for Leafa in specific. I am also not really convinced by the sources in the article regarding the merchandise featuring her. Not only do they not really discuss the character at all, most of them are not even really reviews on the actual figures themselves, and merely saying "this is a thing that exists". Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not opposed to Valnet sources, but the ones provided seem to provide limited to no show of notability. One is merely verifying information about the character; another, despite being a ranking, provides zero commentary. This may seem like commentary at first blush, but it's really just describing her personality, offering the mild opinion that she would not be interested. The Sports Skeeda source is listed as unreliable per the Video Game WikiProject reliable sources page, leaving the only one that seems to provide any commentary being the costumes list, which provides only very meager commentary on each outfit. The first is a single sentence, the second is, once again, a single sentence, and barely says anything - "it's just a bikini". There are some okay commentaries here and there, but the tally seems to be that there's a single source whose commentary could be summed up in a couple sentences, maybe even less considering the significant commentary seems to be about her more sexual outfits cheapening scenes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kotaku covers a SAO product containing this fictional character, but without naming her by either fictional name or fictional gamer handle. This is a pretty opaque journal article that mentions her, as a language tool was trained on SAO dialogue. I was really expecting there to be more RS commentary on her relationship with Kirito (cousin/raised together as siblings/has a crush on him) and the associated ick factor, but most of what I'm willing to go find is just things like Reddit discussing it. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments above. Coverage is extremely weak - passing mentions and listicles from low level churnalism websites. The Kotaku source is perhaps even less than a passing mention, as it doesn't even mention the subject by name. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Coverage doesn't reach WP:SIGCOV when you remove unsourced or questionable sources. The others barely mention the subject, but there is a possible WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that consensus favors merge. For the closer's convenience, List of Sword Art Online characters#Leafa is the appropriate target.
Comment Have any of you tried looking up "桐ヶ谷直葉"? Sources are still sources if covered in notable foreign entities. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language sources can certainly be used to prove notability, but editors are not under a requirement to search in every language if it's not immediately notable in English. If you have found major sources in Japanese, feel free to bring them to people's attention, though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ja wiki article on this character. Someone better than me with translation might want to look at it and see what sources it includes. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there? When I looked, I only found her listed in their version of the "Characters from Sword Art Online" article, and could not find a separate article on the Japanese Wikipedia for her. And her character section on the main Character List over there did not look like it had any usable reliable sources, with the citations largely just being the Sword Art Online books themselves, and a couple of social media posts. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ja interwiki link. If that's all it leads to, then I'm wondering why it was even there in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sánchez[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. The two government positions he held do not confer notability, nor does the scandal. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Puerto Rico. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject, Billy Sánchez, does not appear to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The references provided do not establish the depth of coverage necessary for notability. The incident of alleged domestic abuse, while potentially notable, does not in itself confer notability on the biography subject per WP:BLP1E, unless it resulted in significant coverage about him beyond the incident. The article may fail WP:POLITICIAN as the role of Sergeant-at-Arms, without additional significant coverage, may not be enough to establish notability...

Cray04 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one commenter so far, Cray04, has been checkuser-blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: name is too common to find anything about this person, what's used in the article now is primary sourcing and one article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Could not find independent, in-depth sources. At best a very marginally notable individual. As such, given that the main coverage is negative, I think it best to delete per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Niwiński[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Comments	Source
Database bio with very basic information. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "prof. dr hab. Andrzej Niwiński ID: 63740", National Information Processing Institute Polish Science, retrieved 2024-01-03
List as receiving an award, I do not think this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	2. ^ "Egipt. Odznaczenia dla przedstawicieli Polonii". Prezydent.pl. 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Speaking engagement annoucement, "The guest of the next meeting will be prof. Ph.D. Andrzej Niwiński, Egyptologist", fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Spotkanie z prof. dr. hab. Andrzejem Niwińskim". Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach. 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Youtube guest lecture by subject	4. ^ "Spotkania z Archeologią. Wykład prof. dr hab. Andrzeja Niwińskiego". Youtube. Muzeum Śląskie. 2023-04-17. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Link is 404 and I cannot find the source	5. ^ M.P. z 2022 r. poz. 810

BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I was not able to find an entry in a national biographical dictionary, if sources are found, ping me.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. The article in under construction. Andrzej Niwiński is well recognizable author in Egyptology, but I am not sure if he have already any biography written. I will try to expland it as much as it is possible, and I will check the references again.
Niwinski, A. (1993). Quirke, S. (ed.). "Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th Centuries BC" (PDF). The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 79: cover page. doi:10.2307/3822191. ISSN 0307-5133.

Nbarchaeo (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reviews of his books ([9][10][11], plus offline in: Archeologia Żywa 1996, 2004, 2005, 2006; Ars Regia 1994; and Acta Poloniae Historica 2006), meets WP:NAUTHOR and likely WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three more book reviews: JSTOR 40000588, JSTOR 3822191, JSTOR 43075790. With the ones above that's enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the case of someone who should be notable, IMHO, but has trouble formally meeting GNG/NPROF. The best source about him I've found so far is a brief mention on a blog of one of his students: [12] about him receiving a major Polish state award (but I am not sure if technically this is enough to make him notable): Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. I abstain since as I said I think he should be notable, but formally, he has major issues with SIGCOV. Note that he is notable for pl wiki because habilitation is sufficient for any academic there. We have different criteria, for better or worse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some more assessments of sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPROF is the one and only SNG that that community has unambiguously agreed sits separate from the GNG: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources....This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." Satisfies NPROF c2 and c7 with the award of the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland - one of only 17 awarded that year, see pl:Order_Zasługi_Rzeczypospolitej_Polskiej#Andrzej_Duda_(od_6_sierpnia_2015_–_do_nadal). (Declaration - I finalised the 2022 stats). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Beasley[edit]

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

No enduring notability – one result in a newspaper is insufficient SIGCOV to demonstrate notability of the subject. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Canada. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram feature story ([13]), there's also sigcov from The Vancouver Sun, Hood County News, and the Delta Sports Hall of Fame. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This one looks pretty clear. Would you be willing to withdraw this, @InvadingInvader:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, hopefully you can expand it (which I'm confident you can) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minecraft modding. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WorldEdit[edit]

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

It got an okay amount of mentions from reliable sources, but that's all. Only mentions. Everything else is either a primary source or is unreliable/unvetted. There's really not anything else to say here besides that it is simply not a notable piece of software, and fails SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search does not change this, either. λ NegativeMP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. λ NegativeMP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just added a couple of academic sources. Minecraft themselves have endorsed the software in a list, saying that in that list, WorldEdit is "Probably the most commonly used". —Panamitsu (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the sources that Panamitsu found, it barely passes WP:GNG. If not keep then a merge might be possible to Minecraft modding. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Owing to Panamitsu's recent update I'll strike the delete. This is one of the things where a Google search brings a ton of relevant results and youtube videos but very few to none that explicitly cover the topic in a way that would be acceptable to policy. There's a surprising amount of content in the article owing to borderline original research and citogenesis - probably because there just isn't much else to write. RetroCosmos (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a database of every single minor software program. Fails WP:GNG with a dearth of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minecraft modding. I think there's just not enough significant coverage about what the program is and its value to the modding community to warrant an independent article. Most of the non-research articles are primary sources. The coverage about the modders who used it to create something in Minecraft is trivial. I think the strongest stuff here is the recognition from Softonic and Rock Paper Shotgun that it is useful software, but there's not a lot of content and as a listicle both are not terribly descriptive or evaluative. Similarly, the research articles add some but not a lot of value. Two are theses, which are generally viewed as primary sources under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The Deepak paper does not mention the program in the content of the paper. The Nebel paper is inaccessible but WorldEdit seems to be used in the context of researchers using it as an application for educational tools, which isn't mentioned in the article nor complemented by other research sources, so I'm not sure it's something to hang notability onto. The Rossi source is of minor value with a sentence or two stating that it is a tool with server capabilities that made large-scale modding more efficient. The Koutsouras article has some occasional references across the paper noting where it is used in technical description of in-game building design practices. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minecraft modding. I tend to agree with Vrxces here; the sources seem to be by and large mentions that aren't big enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. ― novov (t c) 22:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VPK Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No credible claim to notability, statements about the company and their sources amount to only trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure there must be some confusion; otherwise, there would have been no need for such a nomination. The fact that this company was WP:LISTED on Euronext Belgium should have prompted the thought that there must be some coverage somewhere, considering this company was founded in 1936 and a large part of that period is pre-internet era, so not easily accessible. Most of the coverage in the so-called digital era is also behind a paywall, so I understand it would be difficult for someone to distinguish, especially if they are unfamiliar with Belgian references. In short, there is a lot of non-routine in-depth coverage that discusses the topic directly such as [14], [15], [16], [17] in Trends, which, according to our article, is the only business magazine in Belgium, [18], [19] in De Tijd, [20] in De Morgen, and in French newspaper Les Echos [21]. Thus, it meets the criteria for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm listing further sources below with which one can expand the article:
"VPK Packaging laat België niet vallen". Trends. 9 September 2010.
De Schamphelaere, Jan (21 February 2019). "Dit is de grootste overname in de geschiedenis van VPK". De Tijd.
"VPK steekt 200 miljoen in nieuwe papierfabriek". De Tijd. 16 June 2018.
"Papier Hoge prijs doet VPK Package pijn". De Morgan. 15 May 2010.
"Personeel VPK Packaging opnieuw aan het werk". De Morgan. 17 December 2007.
"VPK Packaging décide d'investir en Wallonie". 7sur7.
Broens, Bert; Souris, Simon (4 June 2022). "Pierre Macharis (VPK): 'Onbegrijpelijk dat nachtwerk in e-commerce niet kan'". De Tijd.
"Kartonfabriek VPK betaalt in België drie keer zoveel voor elektriciteit als in Frankrijk". De Standaard. 28 March 2023.
De Cat, Kurt (26 February 2019). "Pierre Macharis bouwt papier- en kartongroep VPK uit tot wereldwijde speler". Trends.
Vanacker, Lukas (23 February 2019). "M/V van de week". De Tijd.
Michielsen, Tom; De Schampheleare, Jan (19 May 2017). "VPK investeert 200 miljoen euro in kartonfabrieken". De Tijd.
"VPK Packaging naar de beurs". De Morgen. 29 January 1999.
De Schampheleare, Jan (12 June 2023). "Pierre Macharis, CEO VPK Packaging: 'We houden van België, maar de energiekosten zijn een grote zorg'". De Tijd.
"VPK Packaging neemt Frans golfkartonbedrijf over". De Morgen. 2 February 2009.
"VPK construit une nouvelle usine en Allemagne". L'Echo. 14 September 2011.
Racquet, Erika; De Schampheleare, Jan (3 July 2012). "VPK doet bod op Duitse papierfabriek". De Tijd.
Al Bouchouari, Younes (24 April 2015). "VPK Packaging s'attaque à la Wallonie". L'Echo.
De Schampheleare, Jan (23 April 2015). "VPK bouwt fabriek in België". De Tijd.
De Schampheleare, Jan (3 October 2016). "VPK floreert en doet grote overname na beursexit". De Tijd.
Liesse, Dominique (21 February 2019). "VPK s'ouvre les portes de la Chine". L'Echo.
Vanacker, Lukas (21 February 2019). "Nieuwe overname stuurt VPK naar China". De Tijd.
De Witte, Ilse (21 February 2019). "VPK neemt 15 fabrieken over en wordt actief in China". Trends.
"Normandie : Le papetier belge VPK choisit " Double A " à Alizay plutôt que Chapelle Darblay". 4 June 2021.
Broens, Bert (21 February 2023). "Verpakkingsreus VPK wipt over 2 miljard euro omzet". De Tijd.

Thank you. Heuften (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the sources provided. Refbombing paywalled sources is not helpful. None of the sources provided indicate why the company is notable. All I see is a large number of trivial sources talking about things that all companies do, such as growing in size, acquiring other companies, building factories, moving into new markets, interviews with the CEO etc, all in the local business press. As evidenced by the article itself there is nothing beyond the trivial to see here. There does not appear to be an article on this company in either the French or the German Wikipedias. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:SIGCOV. I checked a few sources through my university library; they are in-depth and meet WP:NCORP. We cannot dismiss a source just because it is behind a paywall and in foreign language. See WP:PAYWALL, which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. "Article on French or the German Wikipedia" is not a criterion either. 72.172.120.125 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources that you reviewed meet WP:NCORP? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is extensive coverage in the 2000 issue of Flanders magazine ([22]), followed by further coverage in books titled Solutions!: For People, Processes and Paper ([23]), Environmentally Friendly Production of Pulp and Paper ([24]), Pulp & Paper Europe ([25]), Wastewater Reuse and Current Challenges ([26]), Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry ([27]), and so on. Geeraarts (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relising. I'd like to hear the opinions of some more experienced editors so I'm relisting the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A press release + routine coverage machine. Also, to Comment:, the three Keep votes are new/unregistered users, and the large majority of their contributions are to this. Smells like WP:COI. TLA (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE noted by User:Primefac: voting in 161(!!) AFDs in 24 hours. Geeraarts (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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