Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 03	March 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KADO-CD[edit]

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

Station does not meet the GNG. Merge into List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Louisiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed No coverage in local media. Station airs Daystar with a few hours a week of local programs, per its issues and programs list: KADO-CD airs a weekly live broadcast of Word Of Life Center. It airs Sundays 10:00a - 11:45a and Wednesdays from 7p-830p. It address spiritual issues, marriage, faith, finances, and current events. In addition to our live broadcast KADO also airs the Daystar network Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:56, 5 March 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Street Dance Girls Fighter 2[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.''Flux55'' (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I found this, is this helpful? ‍ Relativity 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like a legit article from the Korea Herald so yeah. Fence for me on the article overall, the words dance survival program in the article are a phrase that's new to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 27 February 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!} 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no consensus - There is not a strong argument for deletion. At least one reliable source has been identified. Can always be merged into Street_Woman_Fighter_2#Street_Dance_Girls_Fighter_2 outside of AfD process if someone feels the initiative. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 9 March 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!} 07:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canela (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just found this [1] in WP:BEFORE. The athlete only has spells in the minor divisions of football in Rio de Janeiro, with nothing relevant to justify an article. Svartner (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per new sources found. Svartner (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the sources added are good enough for me, good work! Giant Snowman 18:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ due to a lack of significant coverage — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV and an incomplete draft of an article to boot. Anwegmann (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence shown after my original vote. Anwegmann (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - will be adding as much information to the article as I can later today, has been a busy week. I’m not sure it’ll be enough for GNG, but it’ll give a better picture for this debate. Should have all info added by 19:00 GMT. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not enough to save the article from deletion, but have filled it out with information. If he becomes more notable in future, then this version of the article is a better place to start than the blank shell that was there previously. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also voting keep as I believe he just about meets GNG in the Rio de Janeiro area. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, GiantSnowman, MaxnaCarta, and Anwegmann: The article has been substantially expanded. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain if the coverage amounts to enough for me to justify a vote for Keep. However, for the sake of consensus, I am withdrawing my delete vote. With this level of coverage, I'd normally abstain from voting. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new additions to this article's content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Svartner:, Per above. Young player with ongoing career and sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded enough thanks to great work from everyone :) RossEvans18

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Degenerates (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Have not won any award, only nominated for an award. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. They do not fail WP:BAND. Criteria #8 states "Have won or been nominated for a major music award" (emphasis added). ARIA Awards are Australia's premier award. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread the criteria. I will withdraw this AfD. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 5 March 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. Clearly no consensus to delete, but there is consensus to retain the content in some form. Whether it should be as an article or perhaps merged somewhere into a list remains open. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1903 Albany College football team[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet the WP:NSEASONS and has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Team compiled an ordinary 4-3 record. Let'srun (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search of Newspapers.com turns up a good deal of coverage. I've added a few pieces. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one to have a one-off season article like this. I'd suggest merging this to a decade list article, but that doesn't exist. But having an ordinary record isn't an issue... SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lewis & Clark Pioneers football. This now-Division III team is not significant enough to need individual season articles. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By what measure is it "not significant enough"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage to support an article. It might be better to group coverage of this particular team into decades rather than seasons, but that's an editorial question. The sources present in the article support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 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!} 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed (band)[edit]

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

Aside from a brief AllMusic review of Ride and an even briefer AllMusic bio, I couldn't find evidence of notability. Maybe there are more sources out there that are just buried and difficult to find given the band's name being a tad generic, but I couldn't find anything paired with the band members' names either. The band was short-lived in their initial run and while they were apparently signed with Atlantic Records, they were in a genre which wasn't at its most popular at the time it released, so coverage may have only come from niche areas that aren't necessarily the most reliable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Albums and songs. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a legitimate review (paywalled). Found this as well, am not familiar with the site. I would probably say merge to Solace (band), which already has a section named Godspeed. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band article and also Delete Ride (Godspeed album). I am not in favor of redirecting or merging to Solace (band) because they are two distinct bands with only one member in common. As for Godspeed, they got some early notice when they formed, but it was brief and fleeting. No evidence of their "high-profile" gigs opening for Black Sabbath and Dio can be found today, except for some very brief listings of their presence in some books about Black Sabbath trivia. Their release of a cover song is mentioned once in a while in the same fashion. Unfortunately, they just didn't make a big enough splash in either their own time or retrospectively, so there is little reliable info available to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the section Solace (band)#Godspeed years exist? Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone wrote two sentences, that doesn't mean jack for this discussion. It's fan trivia, and unsourced too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna have to agree with Doomsdayer regarding opposition to the merger. It would be undue to give a whole section of another band's article to this one. Even what is in that section probably shouldn't be there, or at least not in the way it's currently written. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as band clearly fail notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 13:52, 5 March 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. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer York[edit]

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

Not finding the kind of independent, significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A scan shows little to no independent, non-incidental coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about an award-winning journalist and musician, since an adequate WP:BEFORE check does not seem to have been done here, especially since this nom was originally bundled. Satisfies WP:NJOURNALIST #4. Per WP:HEY, I have begun the process of adding significant, reliable and independent sourcing. StonyBrook _babble 09:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed did perform a WP:BEFORE, though I don’t always catch every source. None of the awards confer notability–iffy on whether it meets WP:NJOURNALIST #4. The new sources aren’t bad though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it sails past GNG now. StonyBrook _babble 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that with the improved sources it is better ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 March 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 Lowick, Cumbria. as mentioned in the discussion as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Bottom[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Unsourced since creation in 2007. I've corrected the coordinates (which previously led to an unlabelled marshy area), so it now points to a small cluster of buildings identified as "Beck Bottom" on Ordnance Survey 1:50k mapping, but there is nothing to indicate that this is more than a single farm. The article called it a "village" until a few minutes ago when I amended it to "hamlet", having found it as one of the Cumbria articles in the WP:FEB24 unreferenced articles backlog drive.

Beck Bottom appears in our List of United Kingdom locations: Bea-Bem and GENUKI lists it as a gazetteer entry, but neither the Ordnance Survey's "Get Outside" nor Vision of Britain mention it. PamD 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is hard to find but it looks like it is a signposted place, see the instructions to access this wildlife reserve This road follows the eastern boundary of the reserve. After the turn off for Beck Bottom, park on the verge on the right hand side of the road. I think it might be tough to say much about it that could be referenced so I'm currently thinking it would likely be better merged to Lowick, Cumbria unless someone can source a good reference to show otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There might well be a signpost to an individual farm, so I don't think this helps. @JMWt PamD 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement[2] but might be better merged with Lowick. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that inclusion in that list qualifies as a "legally recognised place", and we don't see signs of "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources", to quote the first two bullets of WP:NPLACE. PamD 23:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Recognition by OS is legal recognition in England. And if it is a farm, then it is a populated place.
    But then nobody is disagreeing with you that there is little to say on a standalone page. JMWt (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - So your interpretation is that every named farm on an OS map is "typically presumed to be notable"? I suppose it depends on how "place" is interpreted.
      In this case I think we will struggle to find a reliable source even for its inclusion in the Lowick, Cumbria article. The 2022 parish plan report mentions it twice as a location of flood concern, using two different spellings: Beck Bottom and Beckbottom. The 2005 plan mentions "Beck bottom" as the location of a bridleway problem. Neither shows whether it is anything more than one farm. PamD 08:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The coordinates (though their a bit off) verify its location and the OS source I provided verifies it being a settlement so I don't think additional textual sources are needed to mention in the Lowick article. We would need textual sources for things like someone living there or its name origin etc but I think this is not really needed unless we're questioning its status as a settlement (which we do appear to though as noted the OS source does say so) or its location which I don't think anyone is questioning at least the location the OS shows which as noted is slightly off our coords. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form - it's clearly a place, both in OS, and with a very small number people noted as living there in 1851, with some mentions in books on the Lake District over the years. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1851 Mannex & Company directory of the area has this as two farms in the township of Lowick, run respectively by Williams Robinson and Rowlandson; and by the looks of things farms are exactly what it still is today. Although one is now named Riddings Farm. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign off the road. It seems to consist of a farm and three houses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The farm's address is Lowick Green. There's a holiday cottage. If it was recognised as a hamlet, even with nothing to write about, I'd have gone for a redirect to the parish Lowick, Cumbria. There's no evidence it is or was a hamlet, so unless something else to contradict this turns up, I'm leaning delete. Rupples (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was just a couple farms, not an actual, notable community. Can be mentioned in Lowick if necessary. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of tiny places in Great Britain is a relatively easy thing. There are things like the Victoria County Histories, 19th and 20th century local histories, histories of land charters and whatnot, and all sorts of other stuff. One never has to resort to dot-on-map-means-X arguments, such as the one about Ordnance Survey maps here in this discussion. Either a place turns out to have documentation going back to the 1960s/the Industrial Revolution/the Norman Conquest/the Roman Empire, or (like this article at hand) there just is not any documentation at all. This shows up the problem with turning the GEOLAND "presumed notable" guideline into a criterion of actual notability, and why "populated place" and "legally recognized" are bad criteria for actual notability. For actual notability, given our project:Wikipedia is not a directory policy, we need a lot more than the trade directory that I pointed to earlier, which merely settled the What-even-is-this-dot-on-the-map? question. Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 5 March 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!} 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X Motor Racing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Having being in sim racing myself, this game fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Still, it was no different from the last nomination when people were playing rFactor but in this era of ACC, this sim is now virtually dead and forgotten. Not to forget WP:SPA (given the editing history of Alexandro sds)

Nothing new since then, other than the roasting by Jimmy Broadbent. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says: It has not been reviewed formally by publications and therefore has no Metacritic rating. which is nonsense, as it's been repeatedly and savagely trashed by Joystick [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] but sadly one publisher's coverage is not entering the territory of notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I found a mention in The Games Machine and Rock Paper Shotgun. This leads me to think GNG is barely being passed, though it could go either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good find and edges it on the razor's edge of notability, great work. It's a shame that the extant sources do not really provide much verifiable information about the gameplay, but I've seen articles with worse sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just enough with the reviews found and the discussion on how bad it is/was, should be notable now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 March 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. (non-admin closure) Otuọcha (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi A2[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Further the SNG say that this type of things should not be done. This is one of several like this essentially making each catalog listing an article. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shrestha, Anmol (2023-07-27). "Redmi A2 Plus Review: Best Entry-Level Budget Phone?". TechLekh. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  TechLekh is a Nepali digital tech media company that has editorial oversight. The review notes: "Redmi A2 Plus has a dual camera on the rear with an 8MP main sensor and a 0.8MP QVGA sensor. On the front, it has a 5MP selfie camera. The main sensor is impressive for the price. Photos captured in daylight turn out nice with neutral colors and balanced exposure. The photos won’t have good detail and dynamic range but that is what we expect from a budget phone."
2. "Top 7 Redmi phones under 12000: From Redmi 13C to Redmi A2 - Know them all". Hindustan Times. 2024-02-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "The Redmi A2 features a 6.52-inch, 720 x 1600 resolution display with a 120Hz touch sampling rate and 400nits peak brightness. It is powered by a MediaTek Helio G36 which has a maximum speed of 2.2GHz. It comes with upto 4GB RAM and upto 64GB internal storage. It features an 8MP dual camera and 5MP front camera. It also has a dual LED flash for extra bright photos in low light conditions. It is backed by a 5000mAh battery with a 10W charger. The third entry in our list of Redmi phones under 12000 also runs on the Android 13 version. The sub-Rs. 10000 smartphone also has good connectivity features. It comes with Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth 5.0, as well as GPS, and GLONASS. The entry level phone also has an inbuilt radio, which has gone missing in many smartphones in today's time. Goes without saying, it also comes with a 3.5mm jack for wired earphones, meaning you can buy a cheap pair of earphones and enjoy listening to long hours of music without worrying about your earphone charging. The smartphone comes in three color variants. These are Aqua Blue, Classic Black, and Sea Green."
3. "Redmi phones under 40000: Explore Redmi A2, Redmi Note 12 Pro+, and many more". Hindustan Times. 2023-12-28. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "The Redmi A2 boasts impressive features, including a powerful MediaTek Helio G36 processor with a clock speed of up to 2.2GHz. What sets it apart is the option for up to 7GB of RAM, including 3GB of virtual RAM, providing a smooth and responsive user experience. The device offers ample storage with 64GB built-in, and the possibility of expanding it up to 1TB using a dedicated MicroSD card slot. The 16.5 cm HD+ display with scratch-resistant glass, 400nits peak brightness, and a 120Hz touch sampling rate promises vibrant visuals."
4. "Redmi A2 entry-level smartphone surfaces online: What to expect". The Times of India. 2023-02-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi’s sub-brand Redmi is likely to expand its entry-level smartphone portfolio with a new device. The company is rumoured to update Redmi’s affordable A-series with the upcoming Redmi A2 smartphone. This phone will succeed last year’s Redmi A1. According to a report by WinFuture, renders and expected specs of the upcoming smartphone have been revealed online.The report claims that the Redmi A2 will bring a few improvements over its predecessor and is likely to be released in Europe in the next few weeks."
5. "Redmi A2, Redmi A2+ smartphones with Android 13 Go Edition launched: Price, offers and more". The Times of India. 2023-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "Redmi A2, Redmi A2+ smartphones are now official in India. Xiaomi's sub-brand Redmi has expanded its entry-level smartphone lineup with the launch of Redmi A2 and Redmi A2+ smartphones in India. Both the smartphones feature ab HD+ display and are powered by MediaTek chipset. The duo is backed by a 5000 mAh battery and runs Android 13 Go Edition."
6. "Xiaomi launches budget-friendly phones Redmi A2, A2+ in India, check specs & price". The Economic Times. 2023-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "The Redmi A2 and Redmi A2+ comes packed with a 5000mAh battery with support for 10W charging. The phones will be powered by Android 13. Talking about the structure and design of both Redmi A2 and Redmi A2+, both the budget-friendly phones feature a 3.5mm headphone jack and a micro-USB port for charging."
7. "Redmi A2 & Redmi A2+ launched in India: Which model should you get?". The Indian Express. 2023-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "Both phones are identical in every way, down to their dimensions and weight. However, this year’s models come with a significant upgrade in processing power. Where the Redmi A1+ was powered by a quad-core chip, the Redmi A2+ gets the octa-core MediaTek Helio G36 chip, which should translate to improved multi-tasking performance."
8. Choudhary, Govind, ed. (2023-05-19). "Redmi A2, Redmi A2+ launched in India with MediaTek Helio G36 SoC. Check price, specifications and more". Mint. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "In terms of camera capabilities, both the Redmi A2 and Redmi A2+ feature an AI-assisted dual rear camera system that consists of an 8-megapixel primary sensor and a QVGA camera. This setup enables enhanced photography functionality. For capturing selfies and engaging in video chats, these smartphones are equipped with a 5-megapixel front camera sensor."
9. Singh, Priya (2023-05-19). "Redmi A2, Redmi A2+ smartphones launched in India: Check price, specs, offers". Business Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "Redmi A2+ features a 6.52-inch HD+ display that offers a 120Hz touch sampling rate. It has a leather texture back that avoids scratches and smudges and looks sturdy. It sports a rear-mounted fingerprint sensor. It is powered by MediaTek Helio G36 chipset and offers 4GB RAM and 64GB internal storage. It also offers 7GB of additional virtual RAM."
10. "Xiaomi launches Redmi A2 and A2 Plus smartphones into entry segment". The Hindu. 2023-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "Xiaomi on Friday launched two new entry segment smartphones, Redmi A2 and Redmi A2 Plus, under its affordable sub-brand Redmi.The Chinese smartphone maker also introduced a new brand ambassador, Pankaj Tripathi, on May 16 to endorse Redmi India and the new Redmi A2 and Redmi A2 Plus phones."
11. Yao, Liwei 姚立伟 (2023-05-14). "Redmi A2官宣5月19日登陆印度：后置双摄、5000mAh电池" [Redmi A2 officially announced to land in India on May 19: dual rear cameras, 5000mAh battery]. ITHome [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "The preheating interface shows that the phone supports Android 13 system and does not support 5G network. In addition, Xiaomi also launched a similar Redmi A2+ phone for the European market, which is almost identical to the Redmi A2, but adds one feature: a rear fingerprint recognition sensor."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Redmi A2 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of newly located sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Nepal source seems good, rest overall help the notability discussion. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 5 March 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 Drmies (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyeskyns[edit]

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

Lack of notability as per WP:ORG, WP:COMMERCIAL, and zero coverage beyond their own sites, socials, tourist listings etc. InDimensional (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. InDimensional (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Notable for being the only one, broad coverage in the press, and lifestyle publications. I do not know if "The Royal Household" are a customer but HRH The Princess Royal popped in for a cuppa in 2014. I could write more but I am just not interested. 86.136.70.190 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC):Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]

Are you affiliated with Skyeskyns in some way? InDimensional (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 31.51.170.77 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete zero indication of passing WP:NCORP entirely promotional, a before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It isn't even close IMO. Regards, Aloha27 talk 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above comment, and below. Too many similar articles to be considered a valid comment, even if there are a number of similar businesses in Scotland. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling Skyskyns Guardian, Skyeskyns Scotsman, or Skyeskyns New York Times and I think you wil agree your comment is without merit. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "Google" and the like are not third-party reliable sources to establish notability (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) The claim that "other stuff exists" is addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_use_or_avoid_%22other_stuff_exists%22_arguments Unfortunately, not every organization meets Notability standards. Regards, Aloha27 talk 16:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Please be specific. Same applies to the other stuff.

Google is not the source but does return links to a number of primary, and secondary sources.

The most relevant primary sources are at the bottom of this page. Scholarly articles can be found on JSTOR, and patents can be retrieved from the patent office. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=31.51.170.77&users=86.136.70.190&users=81.135.8.134&users=86.142.106.90 Aloha27 talk 19:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was a hijack, but the previous article wasn't notable either so I have tagged that for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, if a page is being trolled, its fine to have it noted in the edit history. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved non-admin vote) burn it with fire (^{the damn spam IPs} due to WP:COMMERCIAL. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious first edits. ^WP:COI Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is now gone to ANI, oh good god. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment - there has been some moves and other stuff that occurred because this was created in a user sandbox and moved with the sandbox history which had a draft for a band which was not the topic of this article. I've undone the moves. This AFD is about the tannery and the article is about the tannery and not the band. See the article talk page for more details. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess. Before the article is deleted as it should be, there needs to be a history split, so the version about the band can be debated separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure that a split is necessary. The original author published the band stuff separately here. -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really sure what the point here is. The content of the edit history is not relevent, and usually consists mostly of vandalism. Wikipedia policy is to not interfere. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The clain to be "the only sheepskin tannery in Scotland" is unreferenced and doubtful, see [8]. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.isleofskye.com/attractions/visitor-centre/skyeskyns. I do wish editors would actually check references before making comments like that. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the reference. It's clearly not an independent source, and the claims it makes should not be trusted - particularly when there's evidence to the contrary. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not a regular AFD participant, but this seems too much like promotion and also fails WP:NCORP. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional, and contribute to family history, and the encyclopedia. Too many similar pages to be considered a valid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per my replies and adding the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced encyclopedic article that specifically avoids selling or promoting a product. Key references are:
how do you strike through repetition? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertising, sourcing does not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of inexperienced editors have already made the same point. Are you suggesting the business does not exist? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly isn't calling this a hoax. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: God almighty this is the definition of a 'short stub'. Doesn't get anywhere close to even getting within sniping distance of suiting GNG. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes but chgfkv is a valid criteria for escalation 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parden? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Had a search for any independent sigcov and nothing much appearing. Very obvious COI meatpuppetery going on in this thread. Qcne (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP is satisfied on all accounts. No idea what the other comment refers to. Specifics please or I will out you. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is getting absurd with the amount of sockpuppetry. An ANI report has been filed for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tee he he 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spam all you want. But in the end, I will have the last laugh. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You laughed slightly late, page protected by Star Mississippi. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Absolutely ridiculous stub with zero evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Everything has pretty much been said. Fails WP:NCORP, non-notable. Get it outta here. --My Pants Metal (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything to meet WP:NORG, the Guardian articles and [9] (I presume them) referenced by an IP editor above is a brief mention, From the Scotsman [10] is an opinion peice written by a member of the company, [11] is mostly an interview with direct quotes and The Hearld article [12] is an interview. I couldn't find the NYT article, [13] was the only one that came up, and doesn't mention the company. Many of the arguements for keeping it are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not establishing that this company is notable. Shaws username . talk . 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've also semi'ed the article for a matching period of time. Will not affect closure in either direction this discussion goes. Star Mississippi 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first article I've nominated for AfD, what a learning experience, hope future nominations go smoother than this! InDimensional (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing that can establish notability has been found and I doubt it will. Fails WP:GNG. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant pure promotional page for a non-notable company. Also their single (unlikely but it's a stretch) claim to notability, that they are the only sheepskin tannery in Scotland, is easily disproven in 10 seconds on Google. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: One of the most obvious PROMO stubs I have ever laid my eyes upon. DrowssapSMM 14:25, 8 March 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. I recommend that, in the future, the nominator present a more coherent, well thought-out deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE. Discussion about a page move and changing the article title can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North Korean terrorist attacks[edit]

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

What is a terrorist attack and what is not cannot be determined neutrally, besides there are no sources and the article seems to be of no use. Youprayteas ^talk^/^contribs 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails WP:NPOV and has a list that can't be measured objectively. Not a good start, but i'm surprised North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism is not an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Terrorism committed by North Korea exist, and list are more useful than categories since you can get more information and find what you are looking for. I added references easily found in the articles linked to. Dream Focus 19:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per 1ctinus. I'm not convinced by Dream Focus' argument: in my view, Category:Terrorism committed by North Korea provides a perfectly suitable navigational function for these kinds of terrorist attacks (and it's not like there are dozens of attacks in this list that require summaries to navigate), while a separate list article invites WP:NPOV or rash summaries about suspected but not confirmed attacks. If the article North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism existed, it would be the obvious redirect. "[Country X] and state-sponsored terrorism" seems to be the standard title format for discussing these topics: I couldn't find other list-articles entitled "List of terrorist attacks by [country]" or "List of [nationality] terrorist attacks". Editors interested in pursuing a WP:ATD should try to create North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism; there is plenty that can be incorporated from State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list)#North Korea. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terrorism committed by country and Category:State-sponsored terrorism do exist. Dream Focus 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not list articles. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism. The AfD discussion hasn't alleviated my concerns about WP:NPOV, but it seems like deletion would only exacerbate Wikipedia's surprising lack of coverage on the subject, and this move to a more appropriate page title and article format can at least encourage editors to continue improving said coverage. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been found on the current topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I believe it passes WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. Deletion is not a solution for this. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – With perhaps a name change to: List of terrorist attacks attributed to North Korea. Svartner (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At best this should be a rename discussion, not a deletion. And if your impression is that we can basically never call anything on Wikipedia "terrorism" because it's hard to define, you're not quite correct. Read MOS:TERRORIST. We follow what most reliable sources say. toobigtokale (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:IgnatiusofLondon's concerns about the list format are valid. Reviewing previous AFDs for lists of terrorist incidents, the consensus is nearly always to keep, apart from the few lists based on ideological category (right-wing/left-wing, etc), which tend to get deleted. NK is something of a corner case though; there's no state quite like it in modern history. WP:LISTCRIT would need to be chosen with care: if NK abruptly test-launches a new weapon in the Sea of Japan, people are terrorized. Was it terrorism, or was it a weapons test? Reliable sources may diverge on the answer, and MOS:TERRORIST doesn't address this. User:IgnatiusofLondon's idea of an article, rather than a list, would be my preferred solution. Waiting for further comment before deciding whether to "keep and rename". Wikishovel (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, MOS:TERRORIST imo would address the nature of a weapons test: we'd follow what RS would say. If they describe it as terrorism, we'd call it the same. If not, then not. toobigtokale (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CLNT, lists shouldn't be deleted because you prefer categories. Also, the table is somewhat more informative. Better Nuncio (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merly a preference but a belief a category is more appropriate than a list here — it protects against WP:NOV and other concerns that list articles, as more directly editable pages, facilitate more easily than categories, especially on an article likely to attract politicised commentary. I'd understand the "somewhat more informative" argument if there were dozens of entries on the list, but there aren't. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There have been sources added so this article is no longer unsourced. I heavily disagree with the idea that "What is a terrorist attack and what is not cannot be determined neutrally" as there have been tons of reliable sources on this topic, not to mention all of the other Wikipedia article in this topic area. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the other Wikipedia article in this topic area aren't list-articles. Lists invite WP:NPOV concerns for attacks and attributions that cannot be delicately and objectively discussed. If an editor tomorrow created List of terrorist attacks by the United Kingdom, I'm sure the AfD discussion would conclude in a merge to United Kingdom and state-sponsored terrorism, and likewise for every other country. What's avoiding a deletion here is that North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism doesn't exist, so there is no suitable redirect target. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:06, 7 March 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!} 01:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Briar Country Club[edit]

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

Notable people have been members, but the club itself does not appear to be notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, every country club is going to have a few notable members, but this is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 March 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!} 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Agar[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources talking about this person in any significant depth. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Politics, and Canada. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Illinois, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The National Post reference, already in the article, is detailed and significant. I've fixed the link, but it should have popped in a Proquest search. There is a LOT of mentions of him as a key player during Mayor Rob Ford's drug and sex scandals, as Ford would appear repeatedly, often exclusively, and sometimes even sober, on Agar's show. Also in the Tuggs scandal, as reported nationally in the Globe and Mail. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know of him, but can't find much of anything about him. [14] is confirmation of his radio show. He's been sued for defamation a few times, but that doesn't make him notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz' refs. As to Oaktree b's comment about defamation suits: I think they belong here if, but only if, he lost a suit, had to retract his comments or to apologize. This is because any valid defamation accusations speak to his reliability as a broadcaster, a salient issue in his field. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 March 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!} 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferroelectric Glassy Water[edit]

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

The only mentions I can find are the papers from Martelli and Cassone. Looks like WP:OR to me. Broc (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Italy. Broc (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only mention of the term I can find is in the paper cited, it does not appear to be used elsewhere. Not yet notable, if the concept is mentioned in other journal papers, might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define a threshold of how many citations a paper must have before being considered. Also, there are papers being cited multiple times -and are therefore "notable"- because they are wrong. Is "Nature Communication" not a "notable" journal? Bender bonder (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, after reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too soon for a page; I agree that we're looking at primary sources only, from one group only, the work of Fausto Martelli and colleagues. The topics needs reviews published by other groups to establish notability. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not one group only, it's a collaboration of two groups and the paper cites other groups. Scientific papers are published after having been reviewed. Define a threshold of how many citations a paper must have before being considered. Also, there are papers being cited multiple times -and are therefore "notable"- because they are wrong. Bender bonder (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, after reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is based on two recently published primary sources from the same group, which is a sign of WP:TOOSOON. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same group. This is a collaboration from two different groups who put together different expertises. Bender bonder (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is only hypothetical, with results by computation. Until this is confirmed by an experiment we cannot say this is even real. Pure water when exposed to electric field of 1MV/m does start to have interesting properties, eg it can form bridges. But this needs fields 1000 times stronger, hard to do in bulk. An unconfirmed idea may be notable, but it would have to prove itself, by being published on by multiple independent authors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete all "hypothetical" works including basically everything in Math. Bender bonder (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, based on this reasoning you should mark for deletion String Theory, or M-Theory. Bender bonder (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Orienting water and other molecules in electric fields is well known, see Electroviscous effects (which needs expansion) and Electrohydrodynamics as well as related material. While the science is OK, it is not new. This is probably why it is not well cited. I am also not sure about the notability of Fausto Martelli.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: There is a new AfC page Draft:Electrofreezing that has just appeared also from @Bender bonder. That page states that the science dates back to 1892. That this page has been written ignoring the prior science that @Bender bonder's own actions indicate he knows implies to me a case for Speedy Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2 It should be noted that the pages Fausto Martelli is also from @Bender bonder. I have to wonder about WP:COI, I don't have rights to check. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 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 Alaska Airlines. I'm closing this as Redirect. Content is preserved in case this "proposed" merger occurs and an article is warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines[edit]

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

I question the notability of this article. The limited information on this page could be covered on the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Aviation. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alaska Airlines: where a section about the merger already covers almost as much as this article does. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To my knowledge, the question when it comes to notability is not whether or not the subtopic could theoretically be covered in another article. States of the United States could theoretically covered in one article. It's whether the subtopic has enough coverage to establish notability under the notability guideline. This topic unquestionably does: there is substantial international coverage of the merger announcement, more coverage when Hawaiian shareholders approved it (something I have not added yet), prior speculation of consolidation before the announcement, and there will be continued coverage regardless of the outcome. We have many articles about mergers between major companies because if we incorporated all of the info into the primary company's article, it would take over the article: examples include Sprint and T-Mobile, Asiana and Korean Air, Microsoft and Activision, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, etc. This is a common enough genre of article that we have an infobox template specifically for this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I understand that the article as it currently stands could be merged but this is just a start. In terms of pure notability source assessment, this article already incorporates significant coverage from the San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, and AP. But there's additional significant coverage from essentially every major media outlet in the U.S. and global aviation media. Happy to pull up more if anyone is unconvinced of this and is unable to find these examples easily. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not saying the merger isn't notable, I'm arguing that it is not notable enough to sustain a standalone article. Even with eight sources cited, there's little more information on this page than there already exists on the Alaska Airlines page. A lot of the sources are simply rehashing the AP or Reuters wire copy, localized to their market, or parroting the Alaska/Hawaiian press release. My biggest concern is that this page will end up like a lot of those merger pages, withering away with little attention from editors who will inevitably focus on the main Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines article has withered away as editors focus on the main airline pages and think the same will happen here as I (and other aviation-interested editors) build this article out. On the contrary, merging the topic into the main article will result in the section becoming disproportionately large. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgeekamfot (talk • contribs)
Comment: to be clear, this is an article about a proposed merger that hasn't happened, and potentially may never happen. I don't know if WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON apply, but I don't see the routine churnalism coverage as establishing notability per WP:FUTUREEVENT. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this later but it goes far beyond "routine churnalism". There was speculation from industry insiders about consolidation before, there's reporting on the original announcement, coverage of continued movements in the merger process, industry analysis on the effect on competition, anti-trust process, and more. Putting this all in the Alaska Airlines article would take over the article. We don't need a crystal ball to find enough coverage to prove notability of this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: the original announcement was covered by pretty much every including New York Times, don't think I need to list these out but there's more in the article. There's multiple examples prior speculation/analysis of a merger (need to research this bit more but I've seen others); lots of analysis on consumer impact including from San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Travel Weekly, Conde Nast, View From The Wing, Star Advertiser; speculation on anti-trust implications from CNBC, Bloomberg Law, Skift, AP, NPR; analysis on how the deal developed from Seattle Times, Bloomberg/Japan Times; continued coverage on developments from KHON; and of course financial coverage on stocks, etc. from Reuters, Forbes, Axios, Barron's. This just scratches the surface. It's not WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. It's also an ongoing event that's not a WP:FUTUREEVENT. It's an ongoing merger that meets the notability threshold with more than enough coverage to merit its own article rather than taking over either airline's article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alaska Airlines Does not need separate article; few other major mergers have standalone articles, even with news coverage like the above. Propose a split if/when there's actually sufficient content to warrant one. Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 6 March 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!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shantel Bailey[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, a Jamaican women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. Lots of mentions of her goal-scoring exploits (1, 2, 3, 4), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:21, 7 March 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!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frøya Skjold Sjursæther[edit]

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

Unfortunately fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Deputy leaders of youth wings are rarely notable, and primary sources or interviews unfortunately dont't rectify that either. Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the writer and I'm sorry for contributing a page that does not fit GNG. I agree to delete it. History6042 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the positions confer notability. It may just be WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:11, 8 March 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!} 22:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Sahebkar[edit]

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

He has many citations but most of them are co-authored with many people (see Google scholar) and it is unclear how significant his contributions actually are. The page does not mention any particular significant contribution. The only non-primary reference is a list of people with the most citations where he was placed 2843rd. The list is not live, but it is archived) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hard not to Keep under WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC).~~ I note that every paper I have looked at has a vast number of authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. No evidence for independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Well the second citation is now a dead link, but ranking 2800th and something isn't notable. First one is primary source, with nothing extra that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C1 does not say anything about the co-authors. More references in the Persian page. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on how useful citation counts are for establishing academic natability and one point brought up there was exactly the studies with huge collaborator lists (see this comment: [15]). If you think citations from such studies should be equally important, please bring it up there. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. When faced with the issue of how to assess citations from huge collaborations, my usual response it to scan his profile counting only the first-author papers. Necessarily this will lower the subject's citation counts but I think that the resulting lowered counts will be easier to calibrate against the field than counts from publications with so many coauthors that Google won't even list them all. Anyway, for Sahebkar I find "Are curcuminoids effective" (sole author), 340; "Curcumin downregulates human tumor necrosis factor" (five authors), 296; "Effect of curcuminoids on oxidative stress" (four authors), 244; "New peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists" (three authors), 217; "Lipid-modifying effects of nutraceuticals" (seven authors), 189; "Curcuminoids modulate pro‐oxidant–antioxidant balance" (nine authors), 178; "Why it is necessary to translate curcumin into clinical practice" (sole author), 176, etc. I think this shows that, even when only first-author papers are considered, he has a pattern of well-cited publications and moreover a clear focus for his research topics, enough to make me comfortable with calling this a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But that's not the only hurdle. The other question is whether we have enough depth of sourcing to support more than a one-sentence sub-stub. Currently we don't even have that. We only have one database-like primary source listing him as a contractor/visitor at an Australian university, and supporting none of the claims in the article. (The webometrics.info source is not even worth discussion.) So the article as it stands fails WP:V, which trumps notability. I tried some cursory searches but only found random author and speaker profiles likely written by the subject. But if more substantial sourcing of his education and career milestones can be turned up, it might be enough to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there are some Farsi language sources. I've made some updates to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the added sources by TJMSmith show notability, especially having won a major award. This would fulfill C2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Other concerns of a microstub addressed above seem solved now. Broc (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As mentioned by others, while his h-factor is large this is for multiple author reviews and should not be considered just by itself. With just his h-factor I would have voted delete. However, the addition of the award satisfies what has been discussed in WT:NPROF (but not as yet formalized), a need for reputable awards to indicate that others recognize notability. It is only a weak keep as this is a national award; if it was international then it would be a strong keep. (I still slightly wonder about the award.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I can't necessary see the subject passing WP: SIGCOV but per WP: NPROF because of the award. Otuọcha (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of the Farsi sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While coverage has been very limited to two non-resume mentions, Amirhossein Sahebkar has recently won a prestigious award, an indication of future potential (as to the expansion and long-term viability of the page) and additional supporting coverage.

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus for keep with the article needing improvement, but not deletion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plants in Meitei culture[edit]

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

Author's WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is tricky, because (1) there are precedents, e.g. Native American ethnobotany, and (2) this particular precedent exists because Native American culture is known for its great knowledge of, and sensitive use of, natural resources, of which plants are a major part. The question in my mind is whether the same applies to Meitei culture? If so, this article could be a reasonable sub-article from the main Meitei culture article? I note that the main article does have a section on "Relationship with nature" but I didn't check if it's by the same editor! It quotes the same story and poem. The main article is mostly an index into sub-articles on aspects of Meitei culture so I don't like the idea of merging the present article into Meitei culture, though parts could be merged into other sub-articles. The "religion" section of the main article is a bit of a mess, and is currently the dumping-ground for material closest to Plants in Meitei culture, so I'm concerned that merging this back would make it even worse. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment. I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. PepperBeast (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got a point. Maybe merging the importance-of-nature theme into the religion section of Meitei culture, the folklore paragraph into Meitei folklore, and the bits on plants used in rites and festivals into the matching festival? No objection if anyone produces a more coherent article in future. Elemimele (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the main author's contribution history. It is infuriating. They are just spamming the site with "X in Meitei culture" articles about every object or concept X in the Universe. This is not at all a careful or thought out process like that which went into Native American ethnobotany; it is just the jobless behavior of a Meitei nationalist with too much time on their hands. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion: Don't accuse other editors of being "Meitei nationalists." This is the second time you've done this; it is pretty much a WP:PA. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an attack unless you think being a Meitei nationalist is inherently bad. This is just the sorts of behavior nationalists engage in; it's inductive reasoning, nothing more, and comes with no value judgement placed on Meitei nationalism. On the contrary I am actually quite sympathetic to Meitei nationalism, and generally agree with their political programme, insofar as it does not concern wasting the time of Wikipedia editors with inane fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note here that Native American ethnobotany is a much narrower topic than Plants in Meitei culture. You could maybe make a case for titling the article Meitei ethnobotany (or similar), if multiple independent, reliable sources talk about that topic as such, but as it stands, as a WP:SYNTHesized grab bag of anything relating to plans and Meitei culture, there's just no comparison to something like Native American ethnobotany. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and tell the main author to stop making articles like this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Maybe delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants, but overall this article has enough content to meet its stated purpose and theme. I'm guessing at this point that the WP:SYNTHESIS complaint made about this drafter's Metei culture articles is something along the lines of "This article's sections don't really go together well enough to be one article; the Wikiauthor synthesized the connection between these topics by treating them collectively instead of separately" and evaluated the article from that perspective. A snip here and a snip there and it's fixed, with enough left over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a bit of snip snip solve WP: SYNTH problem when the whole article is synthesized? I was under the impression that per Wikipedia notability guidelines, you can't create an article that groups together a bunch of content under a single header unless independent sources have themselves grouped the same content under the same or a similar header. For example, there are plenty of independent sources that discuss Native American ethnobotany as such, in those same terms (mind you, that is already a much narrower topic than, say, Plants in Native American culture), but I can't find any covering Plants in Meitei culture. I do see some books specifically on Meitei ethnobotany, but again, that is much more specific than the current title of the article.

Also, if you think the topic Plants in Meitei culture merits an article under that title, than it is inconsistent to delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants. Clearly a Meitei film is part of Meitei culture, and if it mentions plants, at all, in the title or elsewhere, it comes under the purview of such an article.

You can argue an article about X belongs on Wikipedia, or you can argue that an example of X does not belong on Wikipedia, but you can't simultaneously argue that an article about X should exist and yet somehow not cover something that is manifestly an example of X. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problems with these articles fall under WP:SYNTH per se. There's no conclusion drawn, no "and therefore C." I think this might be one of those times when the nom couldn't figure out what was bothering them about the article and picked the guideline that they felt came close enough (but I'll defer to PB on that). I think we're more in the territory of "Does this belong on Wikipedia?" which is a subjective matter of editorial discretion and not a bright-line rule or rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and upon further examination of the wording of WP:SYNTH I see your point (but I'm not the nominator, so I'll let them speak for themselves of course).

While the article is not a list article per se, in many ways it comes close to functioning similarly to a list article, in that it seems to aggregate theoretically disparate topics just because they fall into the intersection of "Meitei culture" and "plants." On this point, I think we can look to the following guidelines from WP:NLIST:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources

"Plants in Meitei culture" have not been discussed as a set, and don't really form a "natural category" of the sort that belongs on Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedia does not license creating articles titled "X in culture Y," for every culture Y and every thing or concept X. That doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. If there are independent, reliable sources on something like Meitei ethnobotany or plants in Meitei culture as such, that would be a reasonable indication that the topic is notable. Simply making a heap of items that involve both a plant and Manipur to is creation of an article through OR/synthesis, not real notability. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for this article to satisfy, we'd need sources that say "Plants in Metei Culture" is a thing.

First, let's look at the sources already provided.

1) I don't see any titles that specifically say "The Definitive Book of Plants in Metei Culture" etc, but I do see things like "A Handbook of Folklore Material of Northeast India" and "Oral Tradition and Folklore of Northeast India," either of which might have a chapter on plants. I don't have access to the book, but we could ping the drafter and ask.

Now let's look for sources not already in the article.

1) Midas Touch Manipur looks on the nose, but it's a blog.

2) Now I'll Google "Meitei ethnobotany." Oh, here we go: Ethnobotany ...Manipur Ethnobotanical survey Yeah, I'm getting lots of hits for this. Food plants, medicinal plants. This is just Google, not even Google Scholar. I think it's safe to say that "Plants in Meitei culture" is a thing.

3) Google Books gives us "Glimpses of Ethnobotany & Medicinal Plants of Manipur, N.E.," "Ethno Medicinal Plants of Manipur, North-East India: Thoubal," and so on. "The Cultural Heritage of Manipur" specifically has "plants in Manipur" in the preview.

The fact that those sources aren't in the article now might be an issue, but I'm very comfortable saying it puts it in the "tag and fix" column, not the "delete" column. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, you could maybe make the case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, because I ran into the same sources- but you'd not only need to change the title of the page, you'd also need to substantially revise the content of the page, and take advantage of the sources you listed. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not comment on the title at this time. As for content, I find it fine as it is. There is room for improvement, but I see no other issues that would make deletion preferable to retention.

I am starting to get the feeling that you just want these articles deleted, no matter which sources are found or how many concerns are assuaged. Sometimes I get that feeling when the other editor does have a reason, just not one they've said yet. Sometimes it's a "Well if they don't solve problem A, then I don't have to mention problem B" situation. We've solved problem A, so is there a B, even a subjective one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've made my reasons pretty clear at this point- unless multiple (or even one) RS's are discussing "Plants in Meitei culture" as a conjunct, it doesn't make sense to have such an article here. You brought up those books on ethnobotany, but that just isn't the same thing, and I had even noted that earlier, before you. Again, if the author wants to create or move the page to Meitei ethnobotany or similar, I would not really have an issue with this, but the current content of the article isn't about that at all, so it would require a rewrite.

I don't think you can introduce sources which discuss Meitei ethnobotany in support for the existence of an article titled "Plants in Meitei culture" and then when I suggest moving the article, simply declare that you do not comment on the title at this time. Articles are supposed to be about the subject indicated by their titles, and if said subject doesn't have independent coverage, it's besides the point that a related topic does have coverage, unless you want to suggest a move- but apparently that's not what you want to do! So it's totally fine if you don't want to discuss the matter of the article's title, but in that case the sources you offer are effectively irrelevant. It's one or the other.

I would also add that if I were really just trying to get this article deleted by any means necessary, for some secret covert reason, I would not have suggested the move (which I did after discussing the same sources as you, before anyone even mentioned a move as a possibility). This was a fundamentally conciliatiory gesture in the sense that it is meant to allow the original article author to salvage as much of their article as they can. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that cultural elements of a particular X culture include folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of X. I don't think we have to find sources that mention that Meitei folklore is a part of Meitei culture. Inside the article, I don't provide anything unsourced or uncited. And all the sources are based on folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of Meitei. If the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people alias Manipuri speaking people but not exactly the very wording "plants in Meitei culture", I don't think it means marigold isn't plant. I believe Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Besides, there are other similar articles such as Plants in Christian iconography. Everyone is welcomed to improve the article but total deletion is too harsh on this issue. --Haoreima (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our objection isn't that the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people without using the very wording "plants in Meitei culture". Our objection is more that all of the sources seem to fundamentally be about different things- about, as you note, folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc., and it is you, as the author, that has aggregated these things together just because they mention plants and are part of Meitei culture. If multiple reliable independent sources were discussing "plants in Meitei culture" as a unit, the situation would be different.

As it stands I think you have a chance of making a case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, while dramatically reworking pretty much all of the content to use the sources that Darkfrog24 mentioned above, amongst others. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are countless papers directly associated with the article's topic in different sources, like:

Sacred plant species of the Meitei community (from the ResearchGate)
Plants associated in forecasting and beliefs within the Meitei community (from the neist.csircentral.net, a scientific body of the Indian government)
wild edible plants used by meitei community of eastern himalayas, india (from bioinfopublication.org)
Some Antipyretic Ethno-medicinal Plants of Manipuri Community of Barak ... (from Southern Illinois University)
Vegetable dyes used by the Meitei community (from Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research–National Institute Of Science Communication and Policy Research)
And so on...

I believe we need not to find sources that say medicine, or cuisine, or crafts, of X community are parts of X culture. Haoreima (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H, I would ask that you de-bold and indent your comment so that your (signed and attributed) post doesn't look like two different people ivoting, to readers who don't look closely enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this article was accepted by the jury members of the Feminism and Folklore 2023 editathon, organized in English Wikipedia, as a part of their event. --Haoreima (talk) 01: 51, 13 February 2024 (UTC); Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, nom admits topic is notable when they say . I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. AfD is famously not cleanup and if the subject is notable any synthesis probs with the current article should be fixed by ordinary editing. Secondly there are tons of sources for this topic so, as nom admits, it is notable. For instance: [16] [17] [18]. Central and Adams (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please focus on addressing the issues of WP:SYNTH and the inherent notability of the topic itself, with regards to available sources, rather than how this particular version of the article is currently written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meitei culture: There's something here, but the article as it stands now isn't it. A few brief paragraphs and a poem. Either redirect or draft until it can be expanded into something more extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the sources provided by Central and Adams, the article is both useful and interesting, making it a valuable addition to an encyclopedia like this. Rather than deletion, the article requires improvement. Thanks. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is consensus that this is an inherently notable topic with an article in need of cleanup. I agree with that consensus. The article merits improvements including the sources found by Central and Adams. Fagles (talk) 01:08, 12 March 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!} 22:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox Australian Poet[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence at all that this person meets the notability guideline for authors. I can't find any significant coverage of their work anywhere and this old archived version of their homepage really isn't promising. The article was created by Lui Pensini, a single-purpose account, and also edited by (ahem) a user called UNORTHODOX AUSTRALIAN POET. Graham87 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Possible promotional article. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a very curious reference suggests that published items identified did exist - : https://www.soundclick.com/member/default.cfm?memberID=5209011&content=photos
However, the titles seen in that reference, and the three names possible to check, do not show up in Trove, or the state library of western australia catalogue, which suggests that the publications were not legally deposited at the time of publication or after, if the photo is showing legitimate evidence of publication. Initial check was that this was a hoax article that has evaded checking for 15 years.JarrahTree 05:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh he's on Amazon but that particular book is indeed not listed in WorldCat. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Chipkin[edit]

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

The individual appears to lack notability, with minimal coverage in reliable sources. Most of the available sources consist of passing mentions, author profiles, and some do not mention the subject at all. Despite efforts, no evidence supporting their notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG criteria could be found. GSS ^💬 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep. Chipkin is a prolific writer on South African affairs with numerous articles in reliable publications. The impact of his work in South Africa on state capture cannot be ignored. Paul W (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-publishing a report alongside other academics does not automatically confer notability. Since there is no significant coverage of this individual except for some passing mentions, if their only claim to notability is their involvement in the "Betrayal of the Promise Report," it should be considered for redirection to the Zondo Commission article. GSS ^💬 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposition contains a conceptual error. The report "The Betrayal of the Promise" is undeniably relevant; however, Ivor Chipkin was the co-author of a book that delves deeper into some of the themes discussed in the report, titled "Shadow State: The Politics of State Capture." This book holds significant relevance to discussions on the subject in South Africa, exploring topics not necessarily within the scope of debates that would later center around the Zondo Commission. Among these issues is the relationship between corruption, state capture, and racial categorizations, as discussed by Liz Stanley from the School of Political Science at the University of Edinburgh in a review of the book (she has no known connection to Ivor Chipkin or Mark Swilling). The Shadow State and Racialising Processes | Whites Writing Whiteness (ed.ac.uk)

Moreover, Ivor is the author of other important reports on corruption, including those published by renowned think tanks as well as those he has directed (such as the Institute for Security Studies, one of the most esteemed in South Africa) Dangerous elites: protest, conflict and the future of South Africa - ISS Africa and authoring thematic book chapters published by Routledge, like "Governance, Resistance and the Post-Colonial State: Management and State Building," edited by Jonathan Murphy and Nimruji Jammulamadaka in 2017.Governance, Resistance and the Post-Colonial State | Management and St (taylorfrancis.com) Andrew Brza (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Chipkin and Mark Swilling were the principal authors of the pivotal report entitled "Betrayal of the Promise. They deliberately kept a low profile when the report was released, likely for security reasons. At the time of its release, the authors represented a consortium of individuals from various institutions.

The report was a product of the collaborative efforts of the State Capacity Research Project, led by Mark Swilling as convener. The authorship included a distinguished group: Professor Haroon Bhorat of the Development Policy Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, Dr. Mbongiseni Buthelezi and Professor Ivor Chipkin of the Public Affairs Research Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand, Sikhulekile Duma and Dr. Camaren Peter of the Centre for Complexity and Governance, and the University of Cape Town. Camaren Peter of the Center for Complex Systems in Transition at Stellenbosch University, Lumkile Mondi of the Department of Economics at the University of the Witwatersrand, Professor Mzukisi Qobo of the South African Research Chair Program on African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the University of Johannesburg, and Professor Mark Swilling of Stellenbosch University. An independent journalist using the pseudonym Hannah Friedenstein also contributed.

Ferial Haffajee's article on Pravin Gordhan's testimony to the Zondo Commission clearly acknowledges Mark Swilling and Ivor Chipkin as the main authors of the report. This fact is well known in South African public discourse.

News24 Article on Pravin Gordhan's testimony

For further reference, the following links provide access to the transcript of Minister Pravin Gordhan's testimony, in which he frequently cites the "Betrayal of the Promise" report:

Transcript of Pravin Gordhan's testimony Andrew Brza (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but your comment does not reflect reality. Chipkin is often cited in the South African context for his work on state capture. Forbes has an interesting article on his profile. His influential work has led to him being invited to write an op-ed in the New York Times. He is regularly asked to give interviews and write op-eds in South Africa. The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) cited his work as relevant and innovative for proposing new ways to measure state capture in a report published in 2023. He was invited to join the board of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy to contribute to discussions on state capture in the Balkans. He has also been quoted as a source in Brazil's most widely circulated newspaper. If these are not indications of his significant contributions to the field, I find it hard to imagine what other evidence would be acceptable. Andrew Brza (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Forbes article you are referring to is a contributor piece so there is no real editorial oversight. GSS ^💬 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll just ignore all the other points? Andrew Brza (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot out there but I can't find any book reviews and I can't find anything which looks sufficiently secondary apart from this: [19] Not sure how to !vote here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Critic of the SA regime who may have made enemies. Good cites for his books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Here are some book reviews:
- Reviews of Shadow State: South African Historical Journal doi:10.1080/02582473.2020.1774640; Transformation doi:10.1353/trn.2019.0032; New Contree, hdl:10394/34644, doi:10.4102/nc.v83i0.53
- Reviews of Do South Africans Exist?: African Historical Review doi:10.1080/17532520802589836; Africa Spectrum JSTOR 40175273; Safundi, doi:10.1080/17533170903461532

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are now all cited in the article. Paul W (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Good cites for his three main works, and reviews for two of them, but only one is an authored and published book. The other reviewed work is an edited volume, which counts for much less, and I couldn't find reviews for "Betrayal of the Promise". Our source for his 2018 resignation from PARI has allegations of sexual harassment; I think we are correct in only reporting the resignation and not the allegations, as their investigation appears to have been inconclusive, but this is also a bit of a loose end in our sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a Mail & Guardian article by Shaun De Waal that described Betrayal as "an extraordinary collaboration of academics and experts ..." Added this. Paul W (talk) 13:10, 6 March 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 Congo Premier League. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Cuvette d'Owando[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The club played in the top tier of R. Congo in 2011 (finishing fifth), 2012 and 2013 before being relegated. I would be willing to be somewhat more lenient, given that we are talking about R. Congo. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Congo Premier League, unless sources can be found. Giant Snowman 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agreed. There needs to be at least one source provided to establish, at a minimum, the club's existence. Anwegmann (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Congo Premier League. Yes, they played in the top league of their country, but that doesn't confer an automatic notability. If sources are found in the future to show they pass WP:GNG, then the article could be restored, but right now, they don't look to meet GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 6 March 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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communists of America[edit]

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

General lack of notability. Out of ten sources present six are self-published (mostly historical and describing various rebrandings) and the other four are from fringe publications that don't really pass a reliability sniff test, with two belonging to Campus Reform (a publication belonging to a right-wing/libertarian think-tank) and the other two being left-wing blog sites that seemingly belong to fringe left-wing political parties/groups that oppose IMT. Doesn't look to be any justification based on notable coverage of the group. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRITE. Current sourcing is pretty terrible and there's not much evidence of anything better available. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the article creator, I agree its sourcing is weak. Aside from notability, I just want to note that the article is useful: It helps differentiate the Judean Pe -- sorry, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (Maoist-ish) and the Revolutionary Communists of America (Trotskyist-ish), which are often confused.

Beyond the sources in the article, I could only find these:

* Local news about local event, no real details https://web.archive.org/web/20160421173142/http://www.startribune.com/powderhorn-park-oratory-draws-minneapolis-left/265855511

* College news about "Are You A Communist" pamphlets, zero details https://mnrepublic.com/9491/news/a-shocking-proliferation-of-communist-propaganda-on-campus/

* College news about the US IMT, fairly detailed, also about "Are You A Communist" https://mndaily.com/278982/opinion/opinion-are-you-a-communist-then-fork-over-65/

* Critical article about IMT and trans issues, fairly detailed, from a Trotskyist competitor group (but fairly sane and with high-quality writing) https://www.leftvoice.org/trans-liberation-and-socialist-revolution-a-debate-with-the-imt/

* Critical article about IMT and January 6, some detail, from a Trotskyist competitor group https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/01/imtc-f01.html

* Critical letter about IMT, some detail, from a Trotskyist competitor group https://internationalsocialist.net/en/2010/03/theory

* Definitely not RS, but useful history about IMT / SR https://splitsandfusions.wordpress.com/2023/08/05/are-you-or-have-you-ever-been/

I think the MN Daily article and Left Voice articles might be enough to eke out notability? If not, can the article be draftified? SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've really just highlighted the problem further and why I put it for deletion. Most of the coverage you're demonstrating is about the IMT as a whole, and mostly from other minor groups in the circular firing squad that is Trotyskyist political organisations. There's nothing really here to denote notability of the group itself, certainly nothing in the sort of perennial reliable sources you'd expect to demonstrate notability of a political group. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of deleting this ? Right now it seems to me to suppress this group and take away their notability and credibility. But this is not productive or helpful in creating a decent society for all people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:4300:A760:B050:2685:35BB:4CBF (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Wikipedia is not intended to be a promotional platform and does not give or take away notability. If a subject is inherently notable then the page should remain, if it is not notable - as judged laregely by whether or not there are reliable, independent sources, then the article should be deleted. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability hasn't been established. Most of the sources are from RCP/Socialist Revolution/IMT websites while other sources are marginal and not considered reliable sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:44, 11 March 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. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in the Park (San Jose)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Coverage is all local and WP:ROUTINE. User:Namiba 15:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and California. User:Namiba 15:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silicon Valley has almost 2 million people and this is one of the most notable Winter events for children. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the Chamber of Commerce.--User:Namiba 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search (above, unmodified) shows multiple major press articles yearly, for sustained, independent, non-trivial RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the available sources fit within WP:ROUTINE "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." A city newspaper covering an annual event is routine coverage. Can you show evidence that the coverage is non-trivial and non-routine?--User:Namiba 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: it's a seasonal event. Allow me to quote the rest of ROUTINE back to you: Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). Now... how does an annual, seasonal, citywide event fall under ROUTINE? It doesn't, and you should really feel embarrassed for proposing that it did. If this entire AfD is predicated on your entirely misunderstanding what ROUTINE is and means, please just withdraw this now. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an unnecessarily hostile response. You ought to consider why you feel the need to be rude to strangers on Wikipedia. Every city in the United States has annual Christmas events. Unless you can show how this event somehow distinguishes itself (through sourcing) then it is you who should be embarrassed for your behavior.--User:Namiba 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're 1) projecting and 2) misguided. Nothing hostile at all, just pointing out that you have failed to understand the relevant guideline. Now, the fact that you once again pretend that "Every city in the United States has annual Christmas events" is roughly equivalent to Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs demonstrates that you haven't heard the message--which is that what you are trying to do damages the encyclopedia--not much, but still: deleting this would be a wrong outcome. Why is that? The fact that you didn't withdraw the AfD means one of several things might apply. If you really want me to be less than charitable, I can start throwing acronyms at you, but I'll make the request politely again: please withdraw this misguided AfD and stop wasting the community's time. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE

1. Yes, this is a hostile response. Please do not gaslight other users. Do not tell them "you should be embarrassed". Please be civil.

2. WP:NOTBURO. Don't cite policies as some sort of "proof", or else other people might cite stuff back at you like "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles."

3. Being an annual event where all the coverage is local press saying "hey, this thing is happening again this year" is pretty much the underlying principle of WP:ROUTINE. What is the exceptional quality that makes it stand out? The city I used to live has a Christmas Market every year(1). That right there is independent coverage. Does it have a Wikipedia page all of its own? Gosh no. It's not notable, except perhaps as a line in a broader article about the city. Recurring annual events are not inherently notable unless they're the SuperBowl or otherwise widely reported. Hemmers (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see quite a lot of coverage in local but major news sources -- not just "Christmas in the park is happening again this year", but retrospectives like this one or discussions like this one of its economic impact. There's also lots of travel guides by real publishers, like this one, recommending it. And there was evidently some kind of kerfuffle about a Quetzalcoatl statue at the event that was significant enough to make it into a number of serious books like this one.— Moriwen (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand more on the Christianity and Civil Society source? The link you posted doesn't show whether it is a mention or significant coverage.--User:Namiba 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Moriwen that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plaza de César Chávez. 3/5 cites are the official website. The remaining two are independent, but WP:ROUTINE press-release adjacent stuff. Most news articles from a quick search are PR-adjacent ("Christmas In The Park Aims To 'Spread Joy To All' This Holiday Season With Inaugural 'Accessible Sunday' Plans", "What Christmas in the Park has planned new for this season"). It's a short article which would be more usefully accommodated as a section in the main article about the Plaza. Pretty hard to see how this article could be expanded without becoming an excessively detailed WP:GUIDE/description or getting promotional.Hemmers (talk) 16:05, 11 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Tirawley[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. There is zero indication that the titular subject (the "feudal title" of "Baron of Tirawley" and "Baron of Irrus") had any reality before the title was "claimed" by an individual in late 2023, a bunch of websites were created by that individual in late 2023 early 2024 to assert those claims (tirawley.com, irrus.co.uk), and related articles (to act as WP:COATRACKs for those claims) created on Wikipedia. Relying entirely/only on those non-independent, unreliable, and brand new websites. The article's creator has, in effect, said "what other sources could there be (for a new claim)". The article's creator also stating that "the claim has reality as soon as the claim is made". And, while that may be the case (for all I know) in the world of made-up "feudal titles", that isn't the threshold required on Wikipedia. Per related notability guidelines, WP:ENN and WP:MADEUP. (I'm not going to get into the WP:REFBOMBINGing and WP:VER and WP:TALKO issues. Suffice to say that I think we're beyond WP:ATDs here). Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks far too unrealistic and unreliable. The Banner talk 15:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on Google Scholar, I'm getting one valid hit on Google Books, which mentions a surname as holder that's not listed in the article. Therefore fails WP:GNG and yes, seems to be WP:MADEUP. Re the WP:REFBOMBING, yes, they'd all need to be examined. One is a blog on an eircom.net (!) site that, ironically, talks about selling titles :-) Another is a Usenet archive! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and per own searches, which show next to nothing. By no means would all feudal baronies, as opposed to baronies in the peerage, be appropriate topics for Wikipedia articles, and this article is undermined by the way it was created and the nonsensical assertions made by at least one editor. Normal verification and notability rules apply, and are not met here. I will study further, just in case, but for now, this seems a clear case. SeoR (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the content guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MADEUP. Spleodrach (talk) 19:43, 5 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aparicio Villatoro[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- a mayor has to pass NPOL #2 on significant media coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth.
But this is just "he is a mayor who exists", which is not enough substance, and it's referenced to just one hit of media coverage, which is not enough sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and El Salvador. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, who always writes convincing arguments against. This is a very poorly sourced BLP anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pasaquina is nowhere near large or significant enough to confer notability to mayors and I can't see anything else that this person did to be notable. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:13, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Marxist Tendency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting general notability as an organisation itself, only non-self-published sources relate to a historical organisation that was never in the IMT. Majority of article looks to fall afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:LINKFARM as it's simply a listing of various non-notable organisations' personal websites or instagram pages. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to remove most of the article's references and then nominate it for deletion - there were 52 on 1 March and now there's 8, all removed by the AfD nominator. NOTDIRECTORY/LINKFARM doesn't apply here because it's an organisation (that can be solved with editing). I've only checked a couple sources from the last AfD which seem to be more on Mr Woods than the org so won't be !voting yet but a BEFORE search shows it has been at least referenced if not discussed by a couple scholarly articles, and there's a number of sources to sift through. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you consider it bad form but the reason why the references dropped so dramatically is because I checked them. Out of the 52 cited prior to a cleanup I did today ~27 were self-published by IMT or one of their subsections. I then went through the remaining ~25 sources and, when it didn't end up either being a dead link or unreliable source, the sourcing would tend to be Synth or circular in nature or quite frankly almost fabricating claims.

As an example here is a passage on Malala Yousafzai I removed:

"In 2012, the IMT published an article denouncing the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai, saying she is an IMT supporter and showing a picture of her speaking at an IMT school in Swat, Pakistan.^[1] Woods's statement has been used to interpret Yousafzai's politics^[2]^[3] and to speculate on whether she has a communist or anti-religious agenda.^[4]^[5] Yousafzai sent greetings to the March 9, 2013, congress of the Pakistani section of the IMT, saying, "I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.^[6]^[7]^[8]"

As can be seen here the first source is self-published, the second links to a Stop The War opinion piece that's about controversy around then NUS president Malia Bouattia and I can't find the original, the third source is a Pakistani newspaper of unknown reliability that cites IMT's own press release to suggest Malia Y. attended an IMT school, the fourth is a dead blog called Kashmir Watch that again cites IMT's press release, the fifth source The Hindu is paywalled so couldn't access, and sources six to eight supposedly support the claim that Yousafzai sent greetings to the March 9, 2013, congress of the Pakistani section of the IMT yet none of them actually say this, only that she had sent greetings to a "meeting of Marxists". In fact the piece in The Nation links to wikiquote which then links to the IMT website as the final source of the claim.

So basically all the evidence for "Malala Yousafzai is an IMT supporter" in the end links back to the IMT website as the source.

On NOTDIRECTORY/LINKFARM, it does apply here because at present once cleanup was complete all that really exists is a table that functions as a directory/link farm to various social media pages and websites of the IMT. The article basically has no content to demonstrate notability of the organisation itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page on an organisation can't be deleted on NOTDIRECTORY grounds, that doesn't make sense. It would be deleted for failing NORG. A BEFORE search still has to be performed. This is a tough one since it does not appear to have been well covered outside its movement, at least in English. I don't really see anything wrong with the Dawn article, though, unless Dawn is not an RS. SportingFlyer T·C 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense in this case, as at present all the article largely exists as is a directory for various social media pages/websites of the groups different national sections. It's not really an article about IMT as an organisation but where to go for your countries subsection of IMT which gives it the format of a directory/linkfarm. On Dawn, the issue isn't necessarily the reliability of the site (I can't speak to that) but the issue in that it's being used as a supposed RS about Malia in IMT but if you read it the only reference to her and IMT is the line "As an IMT release suggests, Malala Yousufzai attended its National Marxist Youth School in Swat in July this year". The source is therefore still the IMT themselves.

The complete lack of coverage in English is why I felt it necessary to bring it to AfD. Too much information when trying to find sources for it just end up being a one or two step journey back to their "In Defence of Marxism" site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note on self-published sources. RR seems to be conducting a wholeseale removal of self-pubished sources on the assumption that they can never be used. In fact, under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves they can be used in the following circumstances:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Self-published sources cannot of course be used to establish notability but self-published sources (such as in this case websites associated with the IMT) can be used as sources for factual things such as events in the organization's history, the names of its publications, and the positions the organization holds or has held. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except I am following that policy. Before I went through line by line and cleaned it up today it was already in breach of point 5 of that list, that the article was primarily based on such self-published sources. While going line by line (as demonstrated in a reply above) it also badly failed points 1, 2, and 3. Many sources used were making claims that were "unduly self-serving", involved third parties, and made claims about events not directly related.

This isn't a problem just with IMT. Wikipedia has far too many articles on fringe political groups/parties where the article is essentially built off of that own groups material. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was fine before you removed nearly all of its content. Here's a list of non-IMT sources from the past year that prove the organization's notability:

https://www.leftvoice.org/are-you-a-communist-then-lets-talk-about-the-imt/

https://mndaily.com/278982/opinion/opinion-are-you-a-communist-then-fork-over-65/

https://racketmn.com/so-about-those-communist-recruitment-posters-all-over-the-u

https://www.campusreform.org/article/universities-host-marxist-schools-sponsored-by-international-revolutionary-organization/20455

https://www.statepress.com/article/2021/07/spmagazine-radicalized-by-the-pandemic-2020-young-people-socialism

https://www.wispolitics.com/2024/international-marxist-tendency-madison-branch-rally-to-honor-aaron-bushnell-and-fight-u-s-imperialism/

The fact that most of the sources were self-published was fine, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article could use a lot more criticism of the IMT- I was a former member and I discovered firsthand that they mostly just sell newspapers and do nothing- but its ridiculous to delete it or purge its contents based off a misinterpretation of the Wikipedia rules.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that most of the sources were self-published was fine, see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... so long as: 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An organisation which has branches in dozens of countries with however many thousands of members in each (though perhaps hundreds in some) is by any and all means notable. Genabab (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the provided sources. More generally, the IMT is a well-known group on the global left, especially as far as Trotskyists go. I have zero doubt that more significant sources can be found if the effort is put in to do so.--User:Namiba 21:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the article can be improved, sources exist. For example, Contemporary Trotskyism:Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain (ch. 11 "The proliferation of Trotskyist Internationals") by John Kelly (ISBN 9781315671048) and The Twilight of World Trotskyism, also by Kelly. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Woods, Alan (10 October 2012). "IMT sympathiser shot in Swat". In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
^ O'Keefe, Derrick. "Sickening attack on 14-year-old Malala used to justify more war and western intervention". Stop the War Coalition. Archived from the original on 16 April 2019. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
^ Naqvi, Jawed (25 October 2012). "A flag and a battle plan". Dawn.
^ Afzal, Afshain. "The truth behind attack on Malala Yousafzai". Kashmir Watch. Archived from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
^ Joshua, Anita (31 October 2012). "It is business as usual in Pakistan". The Hindu. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
^ "Socialist City Councilmember on Nobel Prize Winner Malala Yousafzai: "Socialism is the Only Answer"". Democracy Now!. 13 October 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
^ Waraich, Omar (23 December 2014). "Malala, Obama, socialism: Nobel laureate's political views are complex". Al Jazeera America. Retrieved 4 November 2015.
^ Nichols, John (10 October 2014). "This Year's Nobel Peace Prize Winners Are Radicals—and That's a Good Thing". The Nation. Retrieved 25 January 2018.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Rulers of Hell without prejudice against moving sources over to the target. The only views here supported by P&G are those proposing Redirect or Merge. All other views seem to rely on invalid arguments about popularity, article size, or sourcing for the target page, not to mention a few !votes who were likely canvassed here, and believe this is a ballot. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel)[edit]

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

Although there is a Reception section, the mentions are mostly passing from series or episode reviews. Guidelines such as WP:N (WP:FICTION to be more specific) say that coverage of the subject should be significant, and it doesn't seem this character has many. The article also uses many primary sources and has information that could be considered as cruft, but that's a different story. I suggest a redirect to List_of_Hazbin_Hotel_and_Helluva_Boss_characters#Rulers_of_Hell. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the character list. There's some decent bits here, but these passing mentions aren't really enough to keep the article afloat. If someone finds some proper sources for the article, I'll be willing to reconsider, but being cited only to bits of reviews isn't enough in my eyes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Anything notable about the character can be mentioned in his profile in the list article. The references are definitely not enough to warrant a full article, either. Blubewwy (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Article seems large enough along with enough references (albeit mostly passing ones) to sustain a stand-alone article. In byte size, this article is 19,000 bytes and the character list is 46,000 bytes. A true merge and not just a redirect as proposed by the nominator would keep a lot of information, while a true straight redirect would lose quite a bit of information (an article that is 41% the size of the proposed redirect location). So, I am strongly opposed to a redirect. If consensus was to evolve strongly (not weakly) towards a redirect, then consider this a neutral !vote for a merge, but no way for a straight redirect. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WeatherWriter took the words out of my keyboard, I was thinking along the same lines. Also, redirecting a well-referenced article to an almost unreferenced corresponding section seems like a disservice with regard to Wikipedia's ideals for WP:Citing sources. Daranios (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Weather Event Writer and Daranios. Well-put. Original Alastorian (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article can be redirected, and cited information can be merged there. I never said to destroy all the cited information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character list page is horribly written while this page is very well-referenced. 213.233.154.159 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To debunk all the arguments against redirecting the article:

Article is large enough: see WP:PLENTY. Just because an article is large in size does not mean it warrants inclusion.
Article has many references: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term.
Redirecting the article to an almost unsourced list: this is WP:SOFIXIT level, just merge the information that was in this article when redirecting.

Hope this clarifies everything. Spinixster (chat!) 01:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, a redirect (as you bolded and noted in your nomination) is not the same as a merge. If you wished for a merge, a merge request should have been used over AfD. Mentioning WP:SOFIXIT to that argument would potentially imply you support a merge instead of a redirect. My !vote will remain Keep, as the discussion is not about merging the article, but rather deleting it and I do not support deletion of the article or content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD page clearly says Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. A merge and redirect outcome is definitely possible. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wp:redirects are cheap, and if the character becomes notable in the future, someone can go back and make it. It's not like the information will forever be lost once redirected. Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a merge is a common outcome of an AfD. However, like has been explained above, in contrast to your nomination your current argumentation seems to support a merge rather than a redirect. In such a case a merge discussion rather than an AfD would have been the course recommended by policy.

Thanks for the source analysis, but I personally do not follow the "Proves notability" column. The notability guideline nowhere states that extended treatment has to be within any one specific source. I am aware that opinions on that point are divided. What the guideline does say is that the topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course the treatment must not be trivial, but I believe that e.g. praise of the performance of the character is not. In a case where the phrasing of the policy is ambiguous, I always like to look back at the intent rather than the letter, which is spelled out in WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The secondary sources collectively (supplemented by primary ones) in my view provide enough material to have a full, non-stubby article. Merging the relevant content in the target list would make for an akwardly large section there, out of balance with the rest of that list. So while I can see a merge, I remain with my keep !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If praise for an actor's portrayal of a character is merely enough for the character to be individually notable, then surely characters such as Evelyn Wang or Charlie, whose actors have been lauded and won awards for their portrayals, would be notable? No, because in the end, the praise is contained within the confines of the film/series/etc. Articles such as Ngoc Lan Tran or Homer Simpson shows the character's notability via analysis of the character and/or the character's impact.

And no, how well the article is written does not go into play here. No matter how bad or good it is, if it's not notable, it does not warrant for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:LOOKSGOOD. Spinixster (chat!) 12:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section of Ngoc Lan Tran looks pretty similar to what you describe and what we have here to me. More generally, to then surely characters such as Evelyn Wang or Charlie, whose actors have been lauded and won awards for their portrayals, would be notable I actually say: Yes, if there is enough material to support a full article, and if that commentary does not fit better into the main article based simply on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. I guess we can agree to disagree on that. (Paradoxically, a side character like Lucifer here might be more suitable for a separate article than a main character based on how well their coverage fits into the flow of the article about the work of fiction.) The fact that we don't have articles on Evelyn Wang (Everything Everywhere All at Once) or Charlie (The Whale) (yet!) is not relevant for our discussion here based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for how well the article is written does not go into play here, I can't remember to have made that argument. Did I? Daranios (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, The secondary sources collectively (supplemented by primary ones) in my view provide enough material to have a full, non-stubby article. That is true, but that does not go into play on how the character is notable.

The critical reception of the Ngoc Lan Tran article is not the only thing keeping the article afloat, but even then, there's much more depth on the reception. For example, the Vulture source talks about how the character has attracted criticism and talks about the depth of the character. And of course, the character's reception section will have reviews of the film itself! I doubt any critic will write an article that goes in-depth about a random fictional character from something that has just been released. But the reviews talk extensively about the character and give the character coverage. There is also sustained coverage from the next few years after the film has been released (2019, 2022, etc) So the question is would the character be suitable for a separate page right now, when the show is in its early stages? And if these reviews are enough, would every single character in Hazbin Hotel deserve a separate page, because critics will definitely talk about these characters? Probably not.

I won't repeat what I said again, but here are more examples of fictional characters that are notable, just to compare:

Beverly Marsh from It: while the reception section is quite stubby, the character has attracted analysis and criticism, which is listed there.
Lady Dimitrescu from Resident Evil Village: Keep in mind I'm not comparing the quality of the article, but see how many of the reception sources are also reviews of the game itself. But many sources also comment on fans' interest in the character.

So basically, the question that needs to be asked is that: will the character have sustained coverage in the next few years or so? Similar AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Mouse (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) concerns contemporary sources. While there are many, many sources at the time, the Last Week Tonight version of Mickey Mouse did not get sustained coverage.

Sorry for the long wall of text, but tl;dr, WP:SUSTAINED. The article can always be redirected, and then when sources are available, someone can recreate it. Spinixster (chat!) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but that does not go into play on how the character is notable. That seems to me to be in direct conflict with WP:WHYN. Daranios (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. While the sources are usable to talk about things like plot, development, etc., it does not mean that it proves the character's notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Afton (2nd nomination), which was deleted/redirected for almost the same reason. Spinixster (chat!) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misunderstand. If you were to look again at why we have the notability requirements, I am convinced that the article we have here does fulfill what's requested there, I've already quoted the passage. Therefore it also fulfills the intent of WP:N. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the deletion discussion page of William Afton that I've linked and checked the old page, you can see that that page also has a reception section similar to this one, however, the mentions are trivial/passing. If you look at WP:WHYN, it explicitly says that there must be significant coverage, which this article does not have right now. Spinixster (chat!) 04:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it says there there must be significant coverage. And then it goes on to explain what that means: Coverage that allows us to actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic, while of course also fulfilling the requirements of an encyclopedia like WP:ALLPLOT, use of secondary sources, etc. Do we have only half a parargraph or purely a definition of the topic? No, we do have a full, non-stubby article. Which means we have significant coverage as defined in WP:WHYN, and which means the topic is notable in my book. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not like one has to copy all of the little information into the list article. See any list of characters articles such as List of 30 Rock characters or List of Fresh Off the Boat characters Spinixster (chat!) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, in a merge not all information has to go into the target article. But that's a backwards argument here: A merge is feasible if we cut some sourced material. But there is no need for a merge, and I see then such a cut as making the presentation less good/comprehensive than what we already have, so I see no improvement for Wikipedia here. And then this sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daranios (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge would probably not be needed.

Wikipedia doesn't really have much consistency when it comes to list of characters articles. The two lists I gave are very different from each other. Whereas 30 Rock includes full information about the characters, Fresh Off the Boat only gives a summary. I personally prefer the latter, especially if it's a show that doesn't have a complicated plot like List of Breaking Bad characters, because it just simply tells us the characters, their backgrounds and their personalities, which is pretty straightforward. As far as I'm concerned, Hazbin Hotel seems to be in the middle of both, but these lists should not substitute episode/list of episode articles in terms of talking about plot, especially for a side character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume when you say that a merge would probably not be needed you mean a redirect will suffice, while I mean that we have a reasonably fine article which we should kept rather than merged. So rather than compare to how other topics have been handled on Wikipedia, I suggest to go back to the most basic question: How would a redirect (or merge for that matter) benefit the users of Wikipedia as compared to the article we have now? Daranios (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: If a "reasonably fine article" is a good reason as to why an article should be kept, then we might as well make pages for all the characters, because an article is obviously better than a redirect to a short summary of the character. However, this violates WP:N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Spinixster (chat!) 13:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a solution in place that prevents us from making pages for all the characters: Enough non-trivial treatment in secondary sources. I think we just disagree if this kind of coverage can be made up from a number of shorter treatments or only from longer appearances in secondary sources. We cannot have pages for all fictional characters, because such secondary sources do not exist for all fictional characters. Therefore we do not suddenly create a problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY if we keep this article, which has enough commentary from secondary sources. With that out of the way, we are back to the basic question: How would redirecting (or merging) the well-referenced stand-alone article we have to a very bare-bones, almost unreferenced list section benefit the users of Wikipedia? Daranios (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said above, If a "reasonably fine article" is a good reason as to why an article should be kept, then we might as well make pages for all the characters, because an article is obviously better than a redirect to a short summary of the character. However, this violates WP:N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If a user wants to find more information on Lucifer Morningstar of the show Hazbin Hotel, there's a Fandom page that does exactly that, and WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster (chat!) 04:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have repeated your statement which I thought I had already explained about. So maybe I should explain some more: You seem to object to my phrase of a "reasonably fine article". I did not mean that as in a subjective I like the article, but rather that it is one which fulfills Wikipedia's requirements to an encyclopedic article reasonably well. WP:NOTDIRECTORY says we should avoid Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Noone is doing that here. If we were to do a listing of all characters in the series, and included the material we have here, this entry would specifically stand out as not being a simple listing entry, because it does provide contextual information in the production information and especially reception section. So again, no problem there. The existence of the article is also not asking us to create such a listing, how would it? And the article fulfills the related requirement more specifically geared towards topics within fiction, WP:ALLPLOT. As for Fandom, the wikis there generally approach things the opposite way, concentrating on plot information and primary sources. That's also the case with the specific article you've linked. Something like our reception section here is missing. So referring a person interested in more detailed plot information to Fandom is of course fine. But if we were to change this into a redirect and refer readers to Fandom, we would exactly cut out what makes this article encyclopedic. So, once more, I am still waiting for a convincing argument how hiding all the information we have now in the history of a redirect, and referring them to the list section which only has a little commentary (and that unreferenced), would benefit the readers of Wikipedia. Absent such, let's keep the article as is. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article per logic of replies, and character being part of main cast going forward. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MAJORITY. Just because a character is part of the main cast does not mean the character is individually notable. WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster (chat!) 01:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES suggests character is individually notable. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions are passing. See WP:GNG and what I've stated above: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Spinixster (chat!) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On coverage, disagreement. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources, they're either interviews or passing mentions. I'll do a source breakdown soon. Spinixster (chat!) 02:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source breakdown below, to prove that the sources do not prove notability:


Source	Primary/secondary?	Reliable?	Proves notability TO CHARACTER
Hazbin Hotel Live Q&A with Cast	Primary		No, primary
"'Hazbin Hotel': Erika Henningsen, Stephanie Beatriz, Alex Brightman & Keith David Lead Voice Cast Of Prime Video's Adult Animated Series – NYCC"	Secondary	Yes	No, passing mention, cast announcement
"10 Best Hazbin Hotel Characters"	Secondary	Questionable: Valnet property. See Wikipedia:VG/S#Valnet	No, passing mention, listicle
"10 Best Characters From Hazbin Hotel Season 1, Ranked"	Secondary	Questionable: Valnet property. See Wikipedia:VG/S#Valnet	No, passing mention, listicle
"Why Animation Fans Are Going Wild For Hazbin Hotel's King Of Hell"	Secondary	Yes	50/50. Talks about the character's popularity among fans, not much the character himself
"'Hazbin Hotel' Review: Prime Video's Adult Animated Series Is Sinfully Good"	Secondary	Yes	No, series review, passing mention
"Review: 'Hazbin Hotel' – "Dad Beat Dad"".	Secondary	Unknown	No, episode review, passing mention
"Hazbin Hotel – Episode 5 "Dad Beat Dad" Recap & Review"	Secondary	Unknown	No, episode review, passing mention
"Q&A"	Unknown	Probably not. Neil Gaiman did not work on the show.	No, sourced information is user generated from a question.
"Hazbin Hotel's Lucifer Morningstar Gets an Official Design"	Secondary	Questionable	No, just talks about the official character design reveal.
"Fallen angel, ruler of Hell, and a short KING"	Primary
"Interview: Jeremy Jordan, Kimiko Glenn & Amir Talai on Their Hazbin Hotel Characters"	Primary		No, interview with the cast
VIVZIE STREEM – WE'RE SIX WOOOAHH – #6.	Primary
"Hazbin Hotel Stars Jeremy Jordan, Amir Talai & Kimiko Glenn Tease Exciting Season 1 Arcs"	Primary	Questionable: Valnet property. See Wikipedia:VG/S#Valnet	No, interview with the cast
"Exclusive: Hazbin Hotel Stars Jeremy Jordan, Amir Talai, and Kimiko Glenn Talk Lucifer, Alastor, and Niffty".	Primary	Unknown	No, interview with the cast
"Tough out here for the king of Hell. Episode 5 of #HazbinHotel is out now"	Primary
"Hell's Greatest Dad" Sing-Along – Hazbin Hotel – Prime Video
"More Than Anything" Sing-Along – Hazbin Hotel – Prime Video.
"The Show Must Go On" – Hazbin Hotel – Prime Video.
"Television Review: 'Hazbin Hotel'"	Secondary	Questionable/unknown	No, show review
"Hazbin Hotel: Ranking the Best Songs of Season 1".	Secondary	Questionable/unknown	No, listicle, passing mention.

Please also see the points I've stated above. Spinixster (chat!) 02:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could be an example of WP:TOOSOON. While it certainly appears that the article content suffices and demonstrates enough, the lack of in-depth sources on Lucifer is too great to ignore. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 02:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 'breakdown' reeks of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT like Daranios said, by column three getting dangeously close to WP:OPINION after I checked out the content myself to verify. Since List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would need signficant expansion before a merge could be considered, I would throw towards keep, but would support a separate discussion on whether or not to move this to draftspace as making much more sense. 185.114.163.227 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on Wikipedia policies:

WP:N says there must be significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Passing mentions are not significant coverage, and there's only one source that has significant coverage (it's debatable, thus why I said 50/50).
WP:INTERVIEW says that interviews are primary sources. Additionally, Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability says Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. So if what is said about the character is not by the journalist but by whoever's being interviewed, it's primary and does not support a claim for notability.

See my discussion on character lists above. Spinixster (chat!) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster: I would recommend you consider not commenting further in this discussion. As of this message, a CTRL + F search of your username shows 18 hits, which is actual 18 unique comments by you in this smaller discussion. I think you have reached or are very close to bludgeoning the process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what is needed to be said, anyways. It's an WP:1AM situation now. I've cited the policies in my replies. Spinixster (chat!) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about the sourcing situation on this article. I'm leaning Delete or Draftify on it, as per my statement above, the lack of in-depth sources on Lucifer is too great to ignore. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 12:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing seems to exist from a quick Google on the topic, it would just need one of these tags: And for a user following the tag to then add about two or three more reviews in / mention more from the existing ones. As a comment, when did we forget adding these tags is the first step ahead of spending a week arguing for / against deletion? Off of this I would say either to add this tag and Keep, or Draftify. ICOTEYE (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you eyeing? Google searches and hits on the topic don't indicate notability, and if there's any articles that indicate more significant coverage, it would be good to share this to the overall discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reviews. Once we add analysis from those, this page should be plenty notable. I'll expand the reception section now. ICOTEYE (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I won't reply again, but I'd like to point out that some of the sources you added are unreliable/questionable:

The Michael Knowles Show is owned by The Daily Wire, which per WP:RSP is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Michael Knowles is also not a critic of any kind; he's a political commentator.
The Conservative Woman: per this discussion, this website promotes conspiracy theories.
Patheos is a WP:SPS, and the author is questionable.

There's more, but I do not feel like talking about them here would make a difference. Spinixster (chat!) 08:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per nom. ltb d l (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage he has received in the reception alone shows that the character is notable, whilst the fact that he already has merchandise shows the character's importance/impact out of the show. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merchandise is absolutely not an incidactor of notability. ltb d l (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was, I said it showed the out of show impact DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so it's irrelevant, then. ltb d l (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DDoOL, obv. Page was nominated for not having a real reception, and now it has a real reception. XofSwording (talk) 16:46, 11 March 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 just thought I'd add, due to the comment about an "ecosystem", that over the past 3 months, through PRODs and AFDs, we have deleted dozens of articles on these low power TV stations. So, this is just one of many articles in this subject area that have been deleted in 2023-2024. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K34HO-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I freely admit to not understanding the subject matter, but there appears to whole Wikipedia ecosystem around these low power television stations that seem to bubble up for a few years, somemes as a notable station, e.g. Univision and sometimes not. It seems to me that keeping the whole of the system intact is a much better resource than one with holes in it. MNewnham (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Minnesota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were an article on UHF-TV Inc., this would be a candidate to be redirected there. There isn't. Most coverage would be at the system level. As a "stack-lator", there is no appropriate redirect target. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 5 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Marks (psychologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:PROF Vanity page for a dubious parapsychologist, originally written by the subject himself. Very little to suggest any notability within.the scientific field. Most references are to his own published works, mostly in low impact/open access journals. Little Professor (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Little Professor (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Psychology, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think he might easily pass the WP:Prof test based on publications. His 1973 Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures in the British Journal of Psychology seems to be cited according to GS by around 2300 and there are multiple other articles in this journal, and others, with high citation scores (100+). (Msrasnw (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Mrasnw: VVIQ has proved an essential tool in the scientific investigation of mental imagery as a phenomenological, behavioral and neurological construct. That's significant impact.

In addition, Marks is a Fellow (FBPsS)^[1] of the British Psychological Society.

I need to note that "dubious parapsychologist" is a massive mischaracterization of Marks's skeptical work on parapsychology. Paradoctor (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/role-auditing-hans-eysenck

Comment only I suggest editors who want to comment on whether or not this article should be deleted should look at the previous AfD, as there are some relevant contributions. Schwede 66 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. What there is is either obsolete, superseded, outdated, irrelevant, or wrong. Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC for being a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and WP:ANYBIO for having an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. 5Q5|^✉ 15:07, 5 March 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 13:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Coffey[edit]

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

Don't see any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria satisfied. Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely no notability evident in article, no mention of charting releases, awards, nominations, innovation etc. InDimensional (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Page is being edited and updated. NatureAndMusicLover (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are WP:ALLMUSIC, which isn't a reliable source and TM Books & Video which isn't independent of the subject. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:25, 8 March 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!} 08:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Barrabes[edit]

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

Footballer who played one single game that was not on the French 4th, 5th or 6th (amateur) tier. The coverage of him does not seem like significant coverage to me. Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an interview with La Dépêche du Midi and an article with quotes from Sportnet.hr but no WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to be kept. This [20], interview with some talk about his career, but that's all I could find. Mentioned in a few other articles, but these are name drops. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giantsnowman Did you mean delete, since redirect was not mentioned above? If you meant redirect; where to? Geschichte (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't sorry, C&P error! Giant Snowman 18:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 4 March 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. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vestlandhalle[edit]

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

It exists but I couldn't find the sources to show notability. A possible WP:ATD would be redirect to Ruhrfestspiele, though it gets the briefest mention there so I am not sure it is helpful to readers, or if a merge/redirect would unbalance the article. I am also not sure how ambiguous the title is. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sports, and Germany. CptViraj (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it's a good article Evangp (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that no rationale was provided by Evangp, who is the article's original creator.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ILIKEIT arguments are not a valid reason to keep an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NBUILD. Coverage is limited to "this event is happening here" and it's not a very significant building (also German Wikipedia doesn't have a page on it, and they're lighter on notability for some topics). it was only used as one of several backup venues for Ruhrfestspeiele in a 2 year period so I'm not sure it would be a good redirect. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to pass any notability guidelines that I'm aware of. Lacks SIGCOV beyond a passing mention from what I'm finding. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 11 March 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 06:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Cimadomo[edit]

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

only database entries. WP:GNG not met. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. CptViraj (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player had spells at Napoli and Ascoli, in addition to playing for numerous other clubs. Are there no Italian sources about him? At first I didn't find much on my WP:BEFORE either, but I'm waiting for someone with more information. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero meaningful sources, extremely poorly written, and no evidence whatsoever of notability. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 6 March 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 13:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silje Bjelkevik[edit]

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

The article was created by an indefinitely banned user. The article fails WP:SPORTCRIT, in that the subject never reached an international level of her sport, and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This [21] is about all I could find, simple match updates, where they give everyone's time in the event. Nothing about this individual at length. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 4 March 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 13:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Una Damon[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; none of her roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, South Korea, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bit parts from what I see, one-offs. No coverage of any kind found, only listcles or wiki mirrors. Not meeting ACTOR and not enough SIGCOV. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 4 March 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 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof M. Subramania Sarma[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline. No relevancies in google search. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 09:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and improve: there is significant coverage of him in Malayalam RS: try searching for "സുബ്രഹ്മണ്യ ശർമ" [M. Subramania Sarma] or "പ്രഫ.എം.സുബ്രഹ്മണ്യ ശർമ" [Prof. M. Subramania Sarma]: [22], [23], [24],

He's also won several notable awards, including the Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award and the Padma Shri. The article is presently poorly sourced and written in the tone of an obituary, but can be improved. If it's reviewed and moved to main space, it should be at either M. Subramania Sarma or M. Subramania Sharma, perhaps a fluent Malayalam speaker can advise on the best transliteration. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It shouldn't be draftified but rather WP:TNT. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't a total copy of the deleted content. The subject seems to be notable, but the contents are probably WP:OR by someone related to the subject. The article as a whole fails WP:V. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No proof of Padma Shri. Charlie (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, I've just read the reference I posted above more closely, and it actually says he was recommended for Padma Shri, not awarded. Wikishovel (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One hit for a green energy council in Gnews, nothing for a violin player. Delete for lack of sourcing, not seeing musical notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 4 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Armed Forces Central Archive[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Hard to know if I am missing anything in non-English sources. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge also unable to find any significant English language coverage. While parts of it could possibly be merged to the Albanian Armed Forces page, I'm not sure where/how it would fit. Shaws username (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarity, I'm not trying to say that it should be deleted just becuase there aren't any English sources, merely that I can't find any. If someone has Albaninan sources that give it notability I'd move to keeping it. Shaws username . talk . 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect totally non-notable subject, Armed Forces of Albania page may have one line mention on this. --NiLok223 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State archives are usually notable. Not having English-language sourcing is not a deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know sources for the English name (which may have been made up for this article) are in short supply. The question is whether there are any sources for the Albanian name. A good starting point for looking would be the Albanian name already in the article: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am severely hampered in my searching by my total ignorance of the Albanian language, but this (in English), this and this may be usable as sources. If this is to be deleted let's do so on the basis of a good-faith search for sources, not because this is "a far away country of which we know little".Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 26 February 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!} 09:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the discussion as a valuable platform for enhancing the page and identifying good points. I am quite familiar with Albanian modern history, and particularly the sources within Albania, and I can say that the page deserves to be kept, not merged, with the current sourcing provided. Bager Drukit (talk) 18:44, 8 March 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!} 08:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Federal Highway 26[edit]

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

I don't think this highway actually exists. There's no information on its location in the article, it doesn't seem to be in the national map that's cited, and I couldn't find any other sources that mention it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I repeat what I said on AFD Mexican Federal Highway 18. Please see its navbox. As far as I can tell,these are all done the same done way by Dr. Blofeld. Note the navbox at the bottom of the page. Also the talk page banners indicate this is ongoing project of both WikiProject Mexico, and WikiProject Highways. Category:Mexican Federal Highways. Stubs are a vital part of Wikipedia. Disagreements with that should probably be addressed to the individual projects overseeing this. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a random look at various entries of highways, it looks like the sources are all Spanish-language PDF. Inasmuch as the sourcing seems to be like that in all I've looked at, perhaps this really is a project issue, not an AFD issue. What's the point in deleting a handful, when all the articles use that PDF sourcing as a basis? — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how "Stubs are a vital part of Wikipedia" justifies an article on something that may not exist? Stubs without sources are not vital. I did note the navbox, which links List of Mexican Federal Highways – this does not have number 26 on it! Nor does the eswiki version. This is not a useful !vote if you can't actually refute the nominator's concern or provide sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely nothing in the article that shows why it should remain as it is. There's no content in the article & as the nomination states, the citations are not helping.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting in an actual !vote now since I was hoping someone would find a source first... No evidence of notability or even existence. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another highway not proven to be independently notable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: create a single article on Mexican highways, and should any individual highways be demonstrably notable, spin off articles from there. Cortador (talk) 12:24, 4 March 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!} 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Garcia (politician)[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor of a relatively small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - a relevant local mayor of significance. Many other local mayors are listed. Jg10101 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean by “relevant”. Could you point to actual sources? Almost zero independent, significant coverage was found. “Many other local mayors are listed”–Ok? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the coverage is WP:ROTM coverage as a councillor/mayor or about his misdemeanor charge for trying to influence a government decision [25] which isn't really an unusal thing for a politician for WP:CRIME #2. Not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Shaws username . talk . 15:03, 4 March 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!} 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Carra[edit]

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

Not yet notable as a politician according to WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NSUBPOL. He's a mayor and former councilmember of a small borough with a population of under 8K, and in a WP:BEFORE search I can only find routine local coverage of his campaign and election. The state commission appointment by the governor also seems to have had only routine local coverage. Having been elected at such an early age, he might well move up to an elected state position eventually, and would then certainly merit an article, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Wikishovel (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course without prejudice against recreation in the future if he moves up the ranks to a more notable position. Smalltown mayors aren't inherently notable just because they exist, but this isn't showing the type of content or the depth of sourcing it would take to make him a special case of greater notability than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Can be recreated if he levels up his career at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A weak potential claim of notability based on youngest councilmember and mayor, but the sources are weak and the position as mayor of a place as small as Raritan does not confer notability, nor does the appointment to a state commission. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May become notable in the future but as of now I'm not finding much significant non-independent sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:15, 8 March 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 Judeo-Iranian languages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Golpaygani[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for accuracy since 2010. If Judeo-Golpaygani actually existed, it may in fact have been a dialect (see Talk). There seems to be very little out there that doesn't originate with our article. Some documents which may be useful can be found in the collection National Library of Israel (if we have an expert in the subject, their knowledge would be especially helpful here).
[NB: Article could also possibly be merged into Judeo-Iranian languages or Jewish languages.] Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, History, Judaism, and Iran. Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Judeo-Iranian languages, unless new information comes to light suggesting it is a hoax. I originally voted keep, because The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History by Bernard Spolsky references the erstwhile existence of Judeo-Golpaygani (p. 241). It is ambiguous on the dialect v. language question, but that's a matter of article content, and not a question for AfD. Now, is it possible this book got its information from Wikipedia and that this is an elaborate hoax? The book was published in 2014, after the creation of this Wikipedia article, so we can't rule that out, but this is a pretty reputable source, published by Cambridge University Press. (Do you (or anyone) have any evidence for or against such a claim?) However, it is clear that even if the language variety really existed, precious little has ever been published about it in reliable sources, and not nearly enough to write a proper Wikipedia article. Therefore I think it warrants merging into Judeo-Iranian languages. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:31, 5 March 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 Procedural keep‎. Blocked sock nomination; no prejudice to re-nomination properly by an editor who knows what they're doing. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct-to-film printing[edit]

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

Paid for spam. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to screen printing~~ This is clearly someone inventing a term/business line for something that already exists but huckstering someone who doesn't know the proper term. Nate • (chatter) 18:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of a series of inexplicable nominations by a blocked sock, so I rescind my vote on those grounds and with be NAC'ing as the article is in good faith and deserves a chance to be expanded. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [26]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MrSchimpf. Seems like an invented topic. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — 84.146.2.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 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 IAR Close‎. I'm not going to relist a tained nomination. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back to AfD if they feel there's merit. Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Leaf Market[edit]

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

Highly promotional, paid-for-spam. Fails WP:NCORP. Fhektii (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief mentions in articles in RS, but nothing about this enterprise found. PROMO and not meeting notability for companies. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [27]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, since someone supported deletion. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) - — 84.146.2.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 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!} 06:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Webaroo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of JoeNMLC who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This web browser article has zero references to establish notability. After searching, found a few social media and Wikipedia-copied websites, but no independent, comprehensive, in-depth coverage. Article was created on 23 February 2009. PROD on March 21, 2009, then de-prod on March 22, 2009. First AfD was March 24, 2009, then removed the same day. Asking for help here to do the second Afd. Regards. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; only [https://yourstory.com/2015/08/webaroo this is by far what I found] that passes GNG, all the rest are non RS GNG sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 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!} 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liza M. Ortiz[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2019. From what I could find, she is or was the executive director of the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico or its national committee, was an advisor to several governors and was considered as a possible candidate for Puerto Rico's non-voting seat in the US House of Representatives. The vast majority of what little coverage I could find comes from the online newspaper NotiCel. I don't believe anything here shows notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, Spain, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no other evidence of notability outside her political career. AusLondonder (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:36, 7 March 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 03:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Thailand[edit]

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

The links to all but one of the sources has rotted. I can't recover the original sources nor find any additional ones that would establish notability. Their is a Tech in Asia article, but this article was written in collaboration with Startup Thailand. The Maierbrugger articles are on archive.org, but they don't mention Startup Thailand at all. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Separately noting that this page has been speedily deleted multiple times. See the logs for more details. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Economics, Technology, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are either gone or don't mention Startup Thailand. Cortador (talk) 07:18, 4 March 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 Myanmar women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hla Yin Win[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:43, 7 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of employment websites[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The companies listed here should be in Category: Employment websites. This list lacks criteria for inclusion and doesn't contain any information that warrants a separate article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is clearly a notable list, and will have no trouble meeting WP:LISTN. Cleanup may be required, but this is not the venue for that. BD2412 T 02:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I would also support as an alternative a merge and redirect to Employment website, both articles currently being rather short. BD2412 T 02:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please make those improvements. You cannot simply assert that a subject is "clearly" notable, will have "no trouble" meeting notability guidelines, and then fail to provide sources that demonstrate that either of those two things are true. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navigational list are more useful than categories since they allow more information to be seen. Everything listed has its own Wikipedia article. When you click to edit you get a page notice telling you that. Dream Focus 08:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: Terrible deletion rationale. The article was also already previously kept in a unanimous vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having a category and a list at the same time is common and not against the rules. Plus the inclusion category is defacto employment websites that have an article which is fine. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the existence of a category does not negate the notability of a list. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 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 Myanmar women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwe Sin Aung[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found on the subject were trivial mentions such as this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - couldn't find anything significant in Burmese Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 9 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Weapons[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Other language articles do not have suitable citations either. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 02:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to List of Discovery Channel original programming which is unfortunately a list of mentions only, when it should be so much more. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sourcing below. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Neil, Dan (2007-05-06). "Bomb Mots". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Machowicz is the host of Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons,” a breathless hour of gun love in which Mack--former Navy SEAL and a keen advocate of peace through superior firepower--pulls the trigger on some of the most fearsome hardware ever procured by the Pentagon. In one episode, he ventilates the night with the fire-spitting 40mm cannon aboard an AC-130 Spectre gunship. On another, Mack visits with the men behind the Massive Ordinance Air Blast device (MOAB), a 21,000-pound, mushroom-cloud-forming super-bomb that is the largest conventional weapon in the Air Force arsenal, thus earning it the nickname Mother Of All Bombs."
2. Szadkowski, Joseph (2007-02-11). "Weapons for future wars". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's exploration of the latest technologies of war continues with the documentary-style television series "Future Weapons." Hosted by 10-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, Richard Machowicz, the program (seen Mondays at 9 p.m.) is currently in its second season and has an interactive and multimedia-enhanced Web site (www.readyaimfuture.com) for fans."
3. Newsome, Brad (2007-10-18). "Thursday - Pay TV". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "The other hardware on show comprises an unmanned helicopter, a mine-clearing tractor and a system that can destroy unexploded bombs without blowing them up. It's a slick production of general interest, not just for war and engineering junkies."
4. Newsome, Brad (2007-06-07). "Thursday - Pay TV". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Sure, all countries want a whiz-bang, high-tech army (well, except Costa Rica, which hasn't had an army at all for nearly 60 years) but there's something quite ghoulish about people who actually get excited about new guns and missiles. Our host here, former US Navy SEAL Richard Machowicz, is one such character. ... Anyway, tonight we're off to Northern Ireland to meet Thor, a lightweight missile launcher that can bring down tanks, planes and helicopters. Thor fires Starstrike missiles, each of which splits into three to improve the odds of a hit."
5. "TV Guide". Sunday Mail. 2008-07-27. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Cool former Navy SEAL Richard Machowicz goes for the big guns tonight, in his upbeat and entertaining weaponry series. Big Mack starts with a rapid-fire cannon then takes a helicopter ride where he unleashes a firestorm with the lightweight Dillon Aero Gatling gun. Then it's on to the firing range to test a new multicalibre combat weapon, lighter and tougher than any other in its class. In the finale, our man checks out a new breed of personal defence weapons with awesome stopping power and accuracy. Hands up which guys would rather watch this gung-ho show than the Sex And The City movie?"
6. "TV Guide". Sunday Mail. 2007-07-01. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "If you think current weaponry is frightening, watch as former US Navy SEAL Richard Machowicz reveals the future is even more scary, with hi-tech weapons that can destroy entire cities in the blink of an eye. The EMP bomb paralyses a city with an invisible electromagnetic pulse, wrecking equipment and sending civilisation back into the dark ages. Then there's the L-RAD acoustic weapon which kills people with low frequency noise, while a laser in a plane will torch ground targets at the speed of light."
7. Kay, Paul (2007-06-03). "channel hop". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "While there's something slightly worrying about the fetishisation of guns, I couldn't help but enjoy new series Future Weapons (Discovery, Thursdays at 10pm), largely because of the over-the-top presenter, Richard "Mack" Machowicz (below). A man so macho he even has the word incorporated into his name, the ex-Navy Seal takes great delight in investigating and demonstrating the most hi-tech weapons being developed by the military and salivating over their proportions and explosive power. Sigmund Freud, one suspects, would have had a field day."
8. "The future of firepower - Ex-SEAL, cutting-edge gear star in 'Futureweapons'". Navy Times. 2007-01-22. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The article notes: "But Machowicz is dead serious about the gear he showcases on the Discovery Channel's "Futureweapons," which begins its second season Jan. 15. On the show, Machowicz examines how weapons can help keep troops safe in this war and in the near future. ... In the coming season of "Futureweapons," Machowicz will show viewers some of the latest weapons sailors are getting. Episodes include a trip to the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, an embark on the attack submarine Texas and a back-seat ride on a Super Hornet."
9. Potton, Ed (2008-01-05). "Digital Choice - Friday 11 Prime-time multichannel". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "This new series is basically Top Gear for budding psychopaths or wannabe warlords, a laddish showcase of the latest in death-dealing hardware, from assault rifles to surface-to-air missiles. It's presented by a former Navy SEAL called Richard "Mac" Machowicz, a shaven-headed, lantern-jawed version of Jeremy Clarkson -only without the irony and the ill-fitting jeans -who says things such as "Let's take care of this threat!" Fun and disturbing in equal measure."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Future Weapons to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per Cunards sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:44, 6 March 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 Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Londy Barrios[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 March 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!} 05:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treamis World School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

REFUNDed following a soft delete, but nothing that has been added meets requirements of independent, reliable sourcing. Even if top ten international school in Bangalore was sourced, it's still not enough. Star Mississippi 01:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and India. Star Mississippi 01:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no improvement and absent coverage from Independent sources. Needs reliable independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:N RangersRus (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been edited to make sure that it only has content on affiliation which is verifiable through the citation provided in the reference. At this point, it does not have content that is not verifiable. As the article is improved, the appropriate citations will be added. Kayenvee (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kayenvee, thank you, but I think you may perhaps misunderstand what is required now. We need to demonstrate that this article is about a notable school, per WP:N. To demonstrate this we need to show it is discussed, with significant coverage, in reliable independent secondary sources. Books, research papers and documentaries are all fine. Magazine articles would generally be fine too, although news reporting coverage in newspapers generally would not be. We don't want to delete the article, but we do need to demonstrate that there is an encyclopaedic subject. That is, we need to have something to say about the school, rather than just noting its existence. Are you aware of any such coverage? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. Some improvement now. Kayenvee (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It exists, but it is hard to find more on it in English language sources. I will leave it a few days to see if Kayenvee, who requested the refund, is able to demonstrate any sourcing. Now would be the time. I could not even see an enrollment figure when I searched. At the moment, without any better sourcing, I am certainly leaning delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an international school, you would expect to find enough English-language sources on the school if it was able to meet notability standards. I nominated this page for AfD a few weeks ago and I am still unable to find sources to justify keeping this page. Kayenvee's user account is also purely used to edit this article spanning multiple years. I suspect WP:COI. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sourcing Thanks to Kayenvee for your efforts thus far. At this point the article now has 11 sources. However, most of these are newspaper reports that are usually going to run into an issue of being primary sources - reports of an event such as the swimming event in source 8, for instance.[28] I think all of these sources are primary, but I was somewhat impressed by [29] (this one is self published and primary) and [30] (primary but published in a reliable source). Despite issues with using them, both these sources speak to some level of notability, in that a school whose students are winning national or prestigous awards and getting mentioned in national newspapers may well be notable. The case is not made yet, but neither am I ready to say it can't be made. I am making this comment now so that we can see if any secondary sourcing exists. Please note that non English sources are allowed too, if such exist. The problem I still have is that I cannot find any such sources, although it does get mentioned in a couple of research papers, e.g. this one on teacher burnout during COVID.[31] Those are not quite what we need though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just a follow up thought. Am I right in saying that this school is one of a collection of Cambridge international schools? Maybe rather than a page on this school there should be a page on the CIS schools as a group and this could be merged into that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 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. Closers are here to assess the deletion discussion and clearly the consensus is to Keep this article. Opinion hasn't changed after a relist and, in fact, has resulted in new sources being found. If the nominator is set on having this article deleted, I'd try another AFD in six months. A visit to Deletion Review will not end in your favor as there is no support here for Deletion. At best, this discussion could close as No consensus rather than Keep but I am persuaded that the consensus is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koumac Airport[edit]

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

I was only able to find non-significant coverage for this airport, namely this, this and this. Fails WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, France, and Oceania. Pilaz (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering this is an airport with scheduled commercial airline service, I'd be very surprised if it actually failed WP:GNG. I've found [32] and a couple mentions here, along with a large list of Google Books results in French I'm having difficulty translating, and some hits from New Caledonia including some very routine stories such as [33] [34] [35] [36] including how the airfield fire truck was stolen, so it's not as if there's nothing at all out there about this airport, and I'm absolutely convinced there's more out there, just that it's difficult to access, as I had to go outside simple searches to find anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Musée Maritime is a passing mention ("aérodrome de Koumac"). RSMA also only offers a passing mention. I don't have access to sources 2, 3, 4 and 5, but without a single sentence about the airport, it certainly trends towards trivial coverage, unless proven otherwise. A series of fire trucks being stolen from an aerodrome does not mean said aerodrome is notable unless it is the source of the actual coverage (I would expect, at the very minimum, a couple of sentences about said airport in an article from the local press). Pilaz (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Museé Maritime shows the airport was used during the second World War, and there are some other links available to support that. The articles I posted were routine stories about the airport going back to 2020, including the theft of a fire truck and the fact there would be an airshow there. The point, though, is that the airport has been frequently mentioned in local press, and that there should be sources out there to make this article pass GNG. Often times at AfD the argument is over whether the only 3-4 sources show notability, in this case there appear to be a lot of local mentions, and mentions in both travel guides as a place to start visiting the region and books showing it housed the 2nd US battalion during WWII. There's plenty of information to build an article on here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm going to add is that we're looking for SIGCOV about the airport here, not just tangential mentions. Notability is determined by multiple reliable, independent sources covering the subject in detail, not by a list of single sentence trivial mentions. Surely, if the topic is notable, those must exist, but until they are found we remain in the domain of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Pilaz (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. Plenty of sources do exist. I have not performed an exhaustive search, just newspaper archives for three years, and a couple books. SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given above by SportingFlyer. Vontheri (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leaning on the reasoning of WP:ITSACASTLE StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed as Keep. Relisting per request on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to undo a unanimous keep consensus simply because the nominator isn't pleased with the results... I said "Keep, for reasons given above by SportingFlyer" because I thought they gave a sufficient argument such that no further was needed, so I was expressing agreement to give more credence to their arguments. But regardless, here are further that I have found...

Most of the sources are not going to be in English, but there are English mentions of the airport on these reliable sources here and here, and an English reference to the ambulance incident already mentioned from a non-English source. Here is some very general information about the airport.

It also looks like multiple travel guides mention the airport.

Is it as notable as a New York or a Beijing airport? No, of course not. But it is certainly notable enough to have an article. Vontheri (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this describes it as "a midsized airport", so it is not just some tiny insignificant airport. Vontheri (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for elaborating beyond WP:PERX. I wasn't going to intervene to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING, but since you mention me, let me just add that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Beyond the fact that deletion discussions are not mere votes, the issue I have is that airports are not inherently notable - they have to pass the General notability guideline like every other non-guideline specific articles. And the problem isn't that the airport doesn't appear in reliable sources, it's that it is only barely mentioned. As far as I can tell, none of the sources presented in this discussion help meet WP:SIGCOV, one of the pillars of the GNG: the first source you offer only gives a passing mention; the second one you offer is also only a passing mention, but also generally unreliable (WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING); the Medical Air Service is neither independent from the airport nor offers significant coverage about it. The two other sources seem to simply gather easily-accessible data (simply listing ICAO, ICAN codes does not a notable airport make). Travel guides are tertiary sources, and since we're only looking for secondary sources, those do not help meet the GNG either.

You can refute the thesis that this airport has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. You just have to find sources that satisfy all the criteria of the GNG and show them here. Otherwise, it's good to remember that not all airports have articles or need articles - some can simply live an accessible life to the reader through a redirect, such as the ones that do not have articles in List of airports in New Caledonia. Pilaz (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) last edited Pilaz (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is an airport with scheduled commercial airline service which hosted a battalion during World War II and which frequently hosts air shows and regularly gets at least mentions in local newspaper articles. I don't know what coverage exactly you're looking for, but we can write a very decent little article on it using the secondary coverage that exists, and this is a very easy keep !vote, and I have absolutely no idea why you think listifying this will improve the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding. We simply disagree about what meets notability standards or not. I know that wikipedia does not consider deletion discussions to be votes, but I do know that the fact that a discussion being unanimous (apart from the nominator) does normally result in a "keep" outcome and does carry some weight, if not de jure then at least de facto.

May I ask exactly how you think the encyclopedia would be improved by removing the article? What harm is the article causing?

If I knew French then I'm sure this would be easier to find more references. But I have found these three in English that mention the military use and history of the airport: reference 1 reference 2 reference 3 Vontheri (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that @SportingFlyer and I have added new content and references to the article which hopefully will be sufficient to convince a "keep". I'm sure that over time, if the article is not deleted, more references will be uncovered and the article can grow, giving useful information to readers. Vontheri (talk) 02:53, 10 March 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 Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheny Vega[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage on the subject to meet WP:GNG. There were a few sources covering an armed attack that Vega and her husband apparently suffered in February 2024 (1, 2, 3, etc.), but I don't believe this to be sufficient. JTtheOG (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 March 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, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to Report[edit]

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

A webseries that has been tagged for notability since 2015. Can't find any good sources covering it in depth (In terms of reviews) and any coverage is few and far between. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NTV This intended series only had 6 episodes, and then nothing. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 4 March 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 02:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pupo[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Cuban women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that my searches produced were passing mentions (2012, 2018, 2022, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear WP:BEFORE has been done here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 March 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 New X-Men story arcs. czar 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Worlds (comics)[edit]

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

Comic world arc/plot summary and nothing but. No reception, or analysis, my BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Fails WP:GNG. Suggst redirecting to List of New X-Men story arcs per WP:ATD-R. And the odds are we need to take a long, hard look at other entries in Category:New X-Men story arcs and parent/sister categories, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm not finding WP:SIGCOV either. I can at least verify that it exists, but there's not really a reception to summarize. We can't write a reliable article without significant independent reliable coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, a redirect could include a very selective merge, since we would need to at least define this subject at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That title is really thankless when looking for sources with the common meaning and New Worlds (magazine) as competition. Can anyone tell what kind of source this Retrospecitva New X-Men is? It has a serveral-page chapter on New Worlds. And has anyone access to Twenty-First-Century Popular Fiction, p. 171, where it seems to appear? There is one paragraph in this Screen Rant article. Daranios (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Retrospective... right now sadly I am calling it a blog, weirdly published in the form of a pdf: https://www.freewareideologico.com/2012/07/15/retrospectiva-new-x-men-de-grant-morrison/ Nothing in https://www.freewareideologico.com/ suggests it is not a blog. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in Z-library, but searching for new worlds gives just the magazine mention. There is an entire chapter on "‘It’s a Trap! Don’t Turn the Page’: Metafiction and the Multiverse in the Comics of Grant Morrison" by Kate Roddy, but it does not seem to mention this arc, and even the term X-men appears just briefly and in relation to the New X-Men series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge So apart from secondary sources which only mention the existence of this story arc/series of comics, the ScreenRant article seems to be the only one with a bit of commentary. Therefore not enough to establish notability. A selective merge to List of New X-Men story arcs (with the help of that one source) seems best to me. I don't think a pure redirect would be very helpful, as our story arc here is not yet even mentioned at the target. Please let me know if anyone finds more sources. Daranios (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of New X-Men story arcs per Daranios. As they said, a plain redirect in this case would not work as the story is not mentioned there currently, and the entire Grand Morrison section is simply a redirect to a category at the moment. So, at the very least, a bit of a merge would be needed for this to work. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 8 March 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 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dy[edit]

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

Lack of notability, appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and Philippines. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article makes no attempt to claim notability, clearly fails GNG. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails any measure of notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant sources. Nothing on the wikis in other languages, either.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 6 March 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 00:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Indian startup ecosystem[edit]

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

I don't understand what this article covers. The lede discusses "waves" and the "next generation" of startups, but these claims aren't sourced. Some of the companies that the article discusses are notable (such as TCS and Infosys), but that doesn't imply that this article should continue to exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and India. Shaws username . talk . 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I can find several sources in English talking about the "Indian startup ecosystem", as much as I loathe the use of that last word when talking about software companies. This, this, this, and this all talk about India's startup culture and discuss something that could be considered a "timeline". But the article is in terrible shape. It doesn't make it clear exactly what the Indian Startup Ecosystem even is, seems to focus entirely on internet startups (as if there is no other sector in the economy), and is very poorly-sourced for the claims being made. Needs a complete teardown. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those sources look pretty good, but they don't really get at what the article was originally about, which seems to heavily focus on the most successful Indian startups as opposed to the state of the Indian startup economy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is basically the title and formatting. There could be a page for "Indian startup ecosystem" but I do not see the individual list as notable as who says which companies belong and don't belong in the list? Seems subjective. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept is entirely based on WP:OR. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that this is mostly original research. popodameron ⁠talk 18:29, 7 March 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.

[IDOM_Malala-1] Woods, Alan (10 October 2012). "IMT sympathiser shot in Swat". In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved 7 November 2012.

[Malala_Stopwar-2] O'Keefe, Derrick. "Sickening attack on 14-year-old Malala used to justify more war and western intervention". Stop the War Coalition. Archived from the original on 16 April 2019. Retrieved 7 November 2012.

[Mslala_Dawn-3] Naqvi, Jawed (25 October 2012). "A flag and a battle plan". Dawn.

[Malala_Kashmir-4] Afzal, Afshain. "The truth behind attack on Malala Yousafzai". Kashmir Watch. Archived from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2012.

[5] Joshua, Anita (31 October 2012). "It is business as usual in Pakistan". The Hindu. Retrieved 7 November 2012.

[6] "Socialist City Councilmember on Nobel Prize Winner Malala Yousafzai: "Socialism is the Only Answer"". Democracy Now!. 13 October 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2014.

[Waraich-7] Waraich, Omar (23 December 2014). "Malala, Obama, socialism: Nobel laureate's political views are complex". Al Jazeera America. Retrieved 4 November 2015.

[8] Nichols, John (10 October 2014). "This Year's Nobel Peace Prize Winners Are Radicals—and That's a Good Thing". The Nation. Retrieved 25 January 2018.

[9] ttps://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/role-auditing-hans-eysenck

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]