The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stordeur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Belgian fencer at the 1928 Olympics. The article is a stub created by Lugnuts (of ArbCom infamy). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belgium. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG: clearly not a notable. Ekdalian (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG nor any other notability standard User:Let'srun 14:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Firstly one of the only three wars listed should not be here because the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria ended in 2000 so it cannot participate in a war that started in 2022. And we don't really need a list for two wars. Unnecessary article. Not every country needs a list like this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CHRI did not end in 2000 nor in 2009. It's government and armed forces continues to exist abroad (in exile), which is supported by RS. It's armed forces are participating in the Russian-Ukrainian war on the side of Ukraine. I mean, even the infobox for the Russo-Ukrainian war has it listed as one of the main belligerents, and it's pretty well sourced, here. And it's been like this for months apparently. If it doesn't deserve an article simply because of the lack of conflicts, then other articles should be held to the same regard. Such as this one, or this one, or even this one. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All those lists seem to fall outside of WP:NLIST as I understand it. The wars are notable individually, but not together. Which RSs are writing on the wars those countries participate in as a group enough that it has become notable? JM2023 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the CHRI may or may not have "ended", but it is no longer a state by either theory, declarative or constitutive. It is not recognized by any state and it has no territory. So is it logical to list the Russo-Ukrainian War as having the involvement of the CHRI? JM2023 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern This article was nominated for deletion less than 6 hours after it was started. There was no discussion first at Talk:List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Nobody reached out to the article's creator at User talk:Ola Tønningsberg. No tags were added to the article noting problems.

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a partially recognized state, and organizations representing it have fought under the Ukrainian flag for nine years now. Whether that constitutes being a belligerent for the purposes of the list is an article-content and policy/consistency question that would have been better discussed at talk or at WikiProject Milhist, rather than being introduced as a claim in an AFD.  —Michael Z. 18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not recognized by any state. Mellk (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It met the declarative theory of statehood when the Russian Federation signed a peace treaty with it. It met the constitutive theory when Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada voted to recognize it as an occupied state.  —Michael Z. 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian parliament voted to recognize it as "temporarily occupied" (whatever that means). A separate bill for recognition of independence was not yet considered. Mellk (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So recognizing it as temporarily occupied is some kind of recognition but not not partial recognition? I can’t quite reconcile that grammatically nor factually. It is something.  —Michael Z. 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is just your original research then. Mellk (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark indicated that I was asking you if that’s your opinion, or just your original research then.  —Michael Z. 21:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] You mentioned declaratory and constitutive theories, which do not appear to be supported by RS. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Meduza’s anonymous news post integrally acknowledges that its view on this is not universally held. Other sources disagree.[2] So its non-recognition doesn’t appear to be an established fact in RS consensus.

Have you read the Rada’s declaration? It clearly recognizes the existence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and its territory, as well as its agreement with the Russian Federation (denounced by the RF). It doesn’t explicitly make a declaration about its sovereignty or independence, but clearly acknowledges their existence when it respectfully refers to CRI declarations of sovereignty and independence.  —Michael Z. 02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine has not recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. "As of 18 October 2022, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as temporarily occupied by Russia awaits the signature of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.... In early November, Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." Therefore the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not fall under the constitutive theory. It no longer falls under the declarative theory, since it had lost all of its defined territory, permanent population, and effective government in the Second Chechen War. JM2023 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying it did have sovereignty according to the declarative theory, presumably until some time between 2000 and 2009.

(I believe it has a defined territory and permanent population, as they have not disappeared; but what it has lost is effective control over them.)  —Michael Z. 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CHRI was definitely a de facto independent state (i.e., declarative theory conditions met) between 1991 and 2000 (from c. the dissolution of the USSR to c. the 1999-2000 Battle of Grozny), and is (and ought to be) universally regarded as such by RS. However, without effective government control, it no longer meets those conditions. Regardless, that has no bearing on its (lack of) recognition by Ukraine. JM2023 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its de-facto recognition in Ukrainian law.  —Michael Z. 16:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources or reasoning behind that? As far as I can tell, "Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." i.e., no recognition. I don't know what "de facto recognition" is, but recognition is the prerogative of Zelenskyy, not the Rada, and as of yet Zelenskyy has not recognized the CHRI. Maybe if you could define "de facto recognition" (e.g., a case similar to countries having unofficial relations with Taiwan, a state that meets the declarative theory conditions anyway).

And regardless, the very lead of the CHRI article says this: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [...] was a de facto state that controlled most of the former Checheno-Ingush ASSR. [...] Since the 2000s, several entities have claimed [emphasis mine] to be an exile government of Ichkeria." Its description in the wiki search says "former unrecognized country". Enwiki itself makes it clear this was a state that no longer exists. JM2023 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Minor points -- 1: A. B.'s point above was valid when written under WP:RUSH and, arguably, remains valid. 2: There is still no discussion on the Talk as recommended by WP:BEFORE C3. Along with RUSH, this is another possible indication of WP:OZD in this good-faith nomination. Major objections -- 3: No policy rationale has been presented by the nominator or !voters. Unnecessary article. Not every country needs a list like this falls squarely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is refuted (lacking other rationale) by WP:NOTPAPER (see WP:NOTHING essay). 4: If there are policy- or guideline-based reasons to delete this article, I don't see them. It's sourced and informative, and wars are generally considered a free pass for WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NLIST, as while the individual wars are notable, the set "wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not notable. Additionally, the article solely consists of a minimal lead and a list, and the list only has 3 items in it with minimal text within each list item. It would have a maximum of 4 items if one adds the War in Dagestan, and the addition of the Russo-Ukrainian War is contested already (are there even any RS for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria still existing even on paper?). JM2023 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's sourced, and whether the government is recognised or not doesn't effect the notability of the government and the wars it has participated in.Newystats (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a real country. Seems to be serving as WP:SOAPBOX for separatists. NavjotSR (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which editors do you imagine are Russian separatists?  —Michael Z. 17:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, dear. Please, let's not go there. I'm sure no offence was intended. NavjotSR, would you be amenable to striking the last two words of your good-faith comment, please? Just out of an abundance of WP:CIVIL? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not offended, but it’s just a dramatic comment in the form of a criticism against an undefined group, that seems to have no relation to any guidelines or rationale. I’d like to give the commenter an opportunity to let us know if there’s really anything to it.  —Michael Z. 17:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Model School, Civil Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. No indepth sourcing to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks references to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Did not find enough in-depth coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of reference and poor coverage; fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Angels School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod citing existence of sources. The sources provided are all directory listings. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks references to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no RS hits in Google News, Google Books and Google News Archives. Note that there are several false positives as Holy Angels seems to be a common school name in various parts of the world. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of reliable sources; clearly fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bahr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The person in this article does not meet the notability standards and uses Wikipedia in multiple languages for public relations. Ungeruehrt (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete professional profile (WP:NOTLINKEDIN) with a twist of BLP WP:CRIME issues. —siroχo 04:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to follow up, I've removed the portion that ran afoul of WP:CRIME. —siroχo 07:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is meant for promotional activities (professional life); should be deleted since it defies the purpose of Wikipedia. Ekdalian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaël Sow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:GNG. He made two appearances at the second level of Belgian football, and was created at a time that NFOOTY existed. Some coverage exists (also here), but is not significant coverage and does not pass GNG. Note that I created this article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Senegal, France, and Sweden. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garvita Sadhwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The article has no substancial work, awards, roles aur sources to pass WP:GNG Sssaaraa (talk) 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only are none of these sources independent, they're all about a single thing: that makeup for this role took three hours. Extremely trivial. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No independent reliable source available supporting notability; clearly fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While numerically, this could be closed as a Keep, the sources are admittedly poor and no improvements have been made to this article during the discussion or further sources unearthed. So, there has been very little follow through by editors wanting to Keep this article to the notability problems pointed out by the nominator and so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holos (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability To be honest, I have given up on this and fully expect it to be deleted. The current reduced entry is now uninformative and effectively useless, having had mentions removed for both the US patents for its influential COA technology. Apparently, it was notable to USPTO but not Wikipedia.TonyP (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TonyP, your edit appears to have messed with the main Articles for deletion log page (particularly on mobile). Could you remove the "==" or add an additional "==" for your Notability section? Conyo14 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources I found so far:

article about Holos use: InfoWorld 22 January 1996 (Volume 18, Issue 4), p. 63

Holos review (1/3 page): InfoWorld 1 March 1999 (Volume 21, Issue 9), p. 63

There are also short news in this magazine eg. about Seagate/Holistic purchase (1 July 1996, p. 37; 4 November 1996, p. 6), or new release (5 August 1996, p. 35)

If there is similar kind of coverage in other magazines of the late 90s, this article may be salvageable. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some argument here about whether or not reliable sources exist that could establish this article subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I remember it being really high-product and expensive product back in the 90's. Its certainly has historical value as computing history. Unfortunately seagate bought them and crystal reports and horsed both of them. Definently a keep. There should be coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you help find more sources maybe? The current ones are really bad and don't suggest the kind of notability you're referring to. Steven Walling • talk 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - could be improved with further sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: is there any possibility of merging some of this to eg Online analytical processing? -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm relisting a third time because there is not a vocal group of editors clamoring for Deletion and an editor has brought up the possibility of a Merger with another article...can that option get some consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It passes GNG and there are enough sources to establish notability. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, what sources are those? They aren't in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can those asserting notability and voting to keep please share references to look at? - Indefensible (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a rather sad AFD in my opinion; the article quality is poor and there are 3 keep votes with only Pavlor giving sources, none of which seem easily accessible. Definitely could use some improvement and cleanup. I would agree with merging it except part of this article is about the company which is not appropriate for the online analytical processing article, it would need a 2nd target such as Crystal Decisions which is another mess itself. - Indefensible (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thet Hein Soe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or the SNG. All references are database type sites. No even medium dept coverage vs. in depth. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Komodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet notability for films [3] this in CNN Indonesia was all in RS I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Brief mention here [4], still nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Among existing reviews, please see:

1. https://www.nanarland.com/chroniques/nanars-monstrueux/animalier/l-ile-des-komodos-geants.html
2. https://www.devildead.com/review/1468/ile-des-komodos-l-curse-of-the-komodo
3. https://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/curse-of-the-komodo-dvd/

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film Threat, maybe, the other two aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but they are! They both are even reference sites in their domains! If you don’t know them, see, https://artusfilms.com/blog/26_Focus-site-internet-5-Devildead-com, and https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/09/voyage-au-bout-de-la-nuit-nanarland-1116968 and https://www.liberation.fr/ecrans/2008/03/18/le-nanar-tapi-sort-de-l-ombre_958685/ etc, etc

Please ask before asserting a source ’is not RS’....thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the Echos article about a different film has to do with this film. I mean we don't have them as reliable sources here in wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair that page is hardly a comprehensive list of every single reliable entertainment website that exists.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second set of sources are not about the film, they're about the sources listed in my first post, in general.... If those two sites are not in the list of resources so far, feel free to ask if you can add them, you have my full support, or to ask at the Horror/Film projects what they think about them, if you prefer. No further comment from me, as I think that we have enough for notability, specially when adding what you and StarTrekker mention .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

• I managed to find this revirew in Hungarian and a little bit of coverage in these books [5],[6], not sure if its enough.★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Grenada#Economy. I'm not sure that this is the best Merge target but I go no response to my Relisting comment so I'm just selecting the option most often mentioned here. I hope the editor responsbie for the Merge will use their best judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada and the International Monetary Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article as it stands is sourced either to Wikipedia, to non-independent sources, or to sources with no significant coverage of the supposed subject. WP:BEFORE doesn't show much that couldn't simply be merged to Grenada#Economy at absolute best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and Grenada. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we maybe need to look a bit deeper for sources as I think there may well be academic references which directly address the subject such as 1 and 2 JMWt (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article would have to be be entirely supported on the first source then JMWt. As I said in the nomination, I don't see a reason for an independent article; the second would be far better served being used in Grenada#Economy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned in the main we are trying to think about policy, and I can't really see a good reason why there is a lack of notability of a page describing a country's relations with the IMF - when there is academic study describing it as important. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - other than the notability question, this is a very encyclopedic article. The IMF is a reliable source; the question is independence for reliability purposes; I could possibly be persuaded that it's sufficient.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF sources fall into the category of "reliable but not independent"; in a case like this, it is valid for use in the article, but I'm not sure you could judge notability merely on that. On the other hand, the Kirton source above seems to indicate there is more likely to be notability than not (though it is quite outdated). Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: personally I don't see how an economic analysis of four/five months in 1983 to be sufficient to establish notability; why do you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at, and perhaps did not explain well-enough, is that a 23-page scholarly analysis in a reputable journal is an indication that there may be other similar sources (granted, 1983 was a hell of a year for Grenada); I was not making a definitive statement that it alone establishes notability. Curbon7 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness there are more recent academic journal papers describing the longer term impacts of the IMF intervention. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is well-written and encyclopaedic. I think it passes GNG easily as written and the only real problem is a lack of sources. I believe that Curbon7's argument toward RSs-yet-to-be-found is also valuable. I do not think that deletion will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: I think the best option is to condense relevant parts into Economy of Grenada. I'm happy to do this, if others agree; just ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, this is not the same as the nom's suggestion to merge it into the economy section of Granada, which I would oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we have an editor arguing to Keep this article and ones advocating a Merge, either to Economy of Grenada or to Grenada#Economy. Any last thoughts about this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bangladesh–Italy relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of The People's Republic of Bangladesh, Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a consulate is sourced only to primary sources. I can find no significant coverage about this consulate to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bangladesh, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect- to Bangladesh–Italy relations. Not independently notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Italy as an WP:ATD. I think that list is a slightly better target than Bangladesh-Italy relations. In any case, I agree with everyone that the consulate isn't independently notable. @Whpq and LibStar: Would you find redirect acceptable, and if so, where would you recommend redirecting to? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no preference. With either redirect target's current state, the reader really gains nothing by being sent there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the article's longevity on Wikipedia, it is based on little more than references to the subject's own organizations' websites. Little other independent information can be found. The recent removal of the "Controversies" section per a discussion at WP:BLPN, removed what little independent sourcing existed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Health and fitness. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. #prodraxis ^connect 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of her in any reliable sources that are independent of her. Cullen328 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any significant coverage in independent sourcing either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does not seem to be any significant coverage about this person. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. When researching the discussion about the "Scrutiny" section of the page, it became clear there just isn't that much out there. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, can't find any independent coverage about King, articles just link to work that King publishes herself

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Celestial Toymaker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Toymaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While generally notable in universe, the Toymaker has only appeared in one on screen story and some spin-off material, and I can't find much beyond that and 60th Anniversary speculation. While some commentary related to his role in the episode "The Celestial Toymaker" may exist, I don't think it's enough to warrant a separate article. In regards to the 60th speculation, it's just that and rumor mills right now, unlike someone like Beep the Meep, who's confirmed to return and has a shot at getting some significant coverage from it. Should anything turn up then, the article can be recreated, but I believe that as it stands right now, there's nothing concrete, and the Toymaker just doesn't have enough to justify the separate article. A possible AtD would be either a redirect to his titular episode, or a redirect to the Doctor Who Villains list. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Celestial Toymaker as there's more info of him there. He is not notable enough to have his own article. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect per nom. Doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE didn't reveal sources that really focus on this character. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Celestial Toymaker: This seems to be a valid WP:ATD-R as it could be used as a valid search term for anyone omitting "The", and it can also provide the relevant character information given the character's limited use. - 2pou (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The character does not have enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like the consensus is that Clean up, not Deletion is called for here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwa dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources (WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources.Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. And I'm not sure what you've got going on with the formatting errors, it's gone wonky. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see guidelines for notability WP:RAJ.I have removed some Colonial Refrences from the article but still there are many you can see. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, it basically says not to source your article from old sources which have one way of thinking. So long as we can balance out with modern sources and present a rounded point of view, there is no concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Oh, yikes - no, that's really not the case at all. You can't "balance out" these sources any more than you could write an article about Jewish history by using nazi history as the basis and balancing it out with more recent historians. It's more or less writing an article entirely based on primary sources that are prejudiced against the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, ouch. My bad. Feel free to trout me again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries! History is harder than it looks. :) Things vary by subfield, but in general it's good to be more skeptical of anything more than a few decades old, and anything from the 19th century or earlier is best left out unless you're really familiar with the material. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:RAJ does not apply here and if you see history of page WP:RAJ author Sitush has himself in past edited this page. As rightly said by Oaktree b WP:RAJ is an essay and not a policy - it is written that Raj era sources should be avoided in caste based articles but Raj era sources are valid for historical facts - if Raj era sources say Jethwas have their capital in Porbandar and it is a princely state with xyz area and xyz population - it is valid source. You are misdirected in this deletion and Jethwa dyansty is centuries old dynasty - further read WP:Before - before you nominate article for deletion. Jethwa dynasty covers all wikipedia requierments of The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). Porbandar State was ruled by Jethwa dynasty was a 13 Gun salute princely state under British Raj Jethwarp (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your nomination argument itself clarifies your mindset you have nominated it with comment it reqiers clean up or redirect - now here only your deletion argument fails for clean up there are tags to be used or you can start clean up yourself with starting a topic on clean up in talk page. Secondly redirect to Jethwa argument is not valid as per me because Jethwa page is about surname used by many castes in India and this page is about a dynasty that ruled for over 1000 years over many parts of Saurashtra from Morbi to Porbandar. Again if you see history and talk page Sitush author of WP:Raj has in past been involved in discussion and editing of these both pages - Jethwarp (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Basing an AfD on WP:RAJ is questionable; basing this AfD on it is unreasonable.

1. First and foremost, it is not policy; it is as editor's opinion essay with zero constructive dialogue attached.
2. The essay is about the unreliability of British sources regarding castes due to a valid assumption that their inherent bias (the unassailable superiority of Englishmen over all 'inferior races' added to drive to legitimise the Raj itself) makes them unreliable.
   1. This article isn't about caste or race, but about political history starting eleven centuries before the Raj.
   2. Starting a discussion about a given source by positing that bias is valid and useful; ending it there for all such sources is neither. Setting the caste question aside, making a blanket statement that all British sources on all India-related subjects from that period share the same bias is fundamentally invalid. To go full ad Nazium, it is the same as saying that all mid-century German scholars were Nazis, thus they cannot be trusted on any subject at all. It is tarring with a ludicrously wide brush. Impugn the sources, not the generic society from which they come.
3. The nom discusses eleven sources out of thirty-seven. That puts this AfD unquestionably within WP:BATHWATER territory.

In short, there is simply no policy basis for this nomination. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG with SIGCOV and depths of sourcing. If those eleven sources need to be deprecated (which they well might; I haven't read them individually), fine. That still leaves two dozen sources and a well-written and encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't update my explanation above, but the article seems mostly well sources, with a balance of old and more modern (1970s to present) sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources (WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources. These are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake. Good Faith. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. SouthernNights (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails NLIST/ LISTN as well as GNG. The opaque bare URL sources are impossible for me to decipher. Many, if not all, towns/ cities have fire stations so it's not clear to me how these ones would be notable. A BEFORE search only revealed only materials from those fire departments, from Ohio government offices, or historical offices in pay of same so there is no independence from the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ohio. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not particularly notable. All towns have fire stations so I don't see any reason why this list should exist. It also fails NLIST. There does not seem to be any significant in-depth coverage. FlutterDash344 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a drive-by comment with no real work put into it. You can find an insane amount of information on many of these buildings, and certainly there are news articles about each and every one. ɱ (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It would be nice if the article's creator had included the title, date and newspaper for each reference accessed through the Columbus Metropolitan Library, but the context suggests that they are mostly newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch. Fire stations often have architectural merit, and I see from the footnotes that at least one station is on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the massive amount of coverage from the Columbus Dispatch over the years, the book A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus: Finding the Past in the Present in Ohio's Capital City, is already cited as a reference. The Ben Hayes reference includes two newspaper articles from the Fabulous Short North newspaper. The first one doesn't deal with fire stations, but the second one is for "Fire! Fire! Fire! Ben Hayes Relates Area Fire House History". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep it starts out ok, with a picture for each station and a small history. Then it's simply a "phone book" style listing. We need some context around why the stations are notable; either historic architecture or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion is not the right reaction. This AfD process checks for WP:N / WP:GNG, which is established here with dozens of citations. This article meet's Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

There are also complaints about the lack of citations and inappropriate format of citations. I sympathize with that, but also, formatting citations for this kind of content is a poor use of human labor. Realistically, no human is demanding these citations, because the only info that these citations provide is a claim of the existence of particular fire stations. Many of the citations here are behind a wall, but they are machine readable or bot verifiable, which is good enough considering that the claim of mere existence is so mundane.

I am going to issue my own take: every city in the world of population over 50,000 should have a Wikipedia article titled "Fire stations in X". If possible, we should use Wikipedia article writing bots to generate these articles in English, the local language, and a few other languages. Verifying them with machine-readable sources or primary sources is okay. The information in these articles should be cross-referenced to Wikimedia Commons for pictures through Wikidata, and then Wikidata should exchange info with OpenStreetMap so that project can give map data to Wikipedia and Wikipedia can provide pics and more info when available to the map. Beyond fire stations, we should also have articles like this for hospitals, police stations, public parks, and other places which are essential to register for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. I am not going to argue that every fire station or hospital is automatically notable, but I think that I am ready to say that we should expect city services are and that list articles like this seem like a scalable pattern for Wikipedia-style documentation of them.

Another opinion: for list articles like this, photos count as sources. The goal here is to establish that this city has fire stations. We do not need to go into detail. Our custom is to treat published text sources as meeting WP:V, even if they do things like poorly describe the architecture or say something like "the mayor was there for the opening". Sometimes for some claims, like the existence of a thing, a picture is the best reference or source or authority. These pics are great, and I think we should treat all the entries with a pic as verified.

For the entries with no pic, and with no citation at all, I think having a human simply point to a database or published list is enough verification for what this is. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. Unfortunately nobody has the patience to allow me to finish formatting the references, and nobody has actually directly asked me to. Also, I do have photographs of most of these places I can upload, but scanning and uploading takes time and effort. When people don't appreciate the countless hours of work I put in, I have little incentive to put in more effort. ɱ (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ɱ: Again, could you not have formatted the references in your sandbox? Have you read the essay WP:REALPROBLEM? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't read essays, I don't need to follow them, there are others that say the complete opposite thing, and I don't agree with the one you linked. Thanks. Every article is a work in progress; these are good enough for the mainspace. There is no ref formatting requirement on this project. ɱ (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And for those who might not be familiar, NewsBank is a database of reputable newspapers. All bare URLs are to NewsBank's Columbus Dispatch archives. I always come back to fix these citations, but it takes time and patience. And automated tools like ReFill unfortunately can't be used to help. So it's a slow process. Asking for attention to any one article would be helpful, rather than an AfD. ɱ (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Request Please fix the bare URLs, and in the future, please fix them in your sandbox space before adding them to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above. ɱ (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter if the citations all went to the local newspaper, per WP:AUD. You haven't made a case that the subject is notable (that there are fire stations in Columbus) nor does each and every station listed already discussed in a standalone article. The subject isn't notable. Pictures don't make the subject notable. Local coverage doesn't make it notable. That you started editing in 2009 doesn't make the subject notable. This isn't merely an argument about citation style. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Columbus Dispatch is the largest newspaper in Ohio, and covers most of the state. It's simply not a local paper. ɱ (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor does citation style make an article warrant an AfD. You didn't really provide any real explanation for the sources warranting deletion, nor even bother to provide an assessment of the references. Which is your whole argument. ɱ (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article about the paper makes no such claims. Also, my clear deletion rationale is lack of notability, much as you try to reframe it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said the article was any good. Most of Wikipedia is crap, unfortunately. And your nomination might as well be a drive-by comment. There's no effort put in, and no detailed assessment of the notability. Simply you're confused because you can't access. Then Ask! ɱ (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Lack of ability to read a source does not mean (or indicate) a lack of notability. I'm sorry you have no access. That does not warrant whole days of effort to be wiped away. ɱ (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you <3 ɱ (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, extremely well sourced, encyclopedically presented, and the chart has everything going for it per Wikipedia article requirements. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: It's currently impossible to evaluate the article based on its sources because of the bare urls, which redirect to a login page. @Ɱ: Per WP:BURDEN (which is policy, not just an essay), there needs to be sufficient information in the citation to be able to find and verify it: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)... see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this. If it takes a minute to properly format a citation, it would take you less than an hour to fix all the citations in the article. That is something you need to do before putting an article in mainspace, per policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nevermind the fact that you need a login to even access those bare URLs, are there any sources that are not WP:LOCAL? Right now it's a little difficult to determine WP:NLIST given the awful ref formatting. Frankly I'm leaning towards draftify since the creator above clearly wants to use the main space as their sandbox. Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Show me the requirement that local sources are somehow unacceptable? And again, The Dispatch is the regional newspaper for Central Ohio, not a local one. ɱ (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only asking, no need to get choppy. Conyo14 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD grew out of heated arguments first at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope? and subsequently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates. This recent comment by Dominic captures the issues and this AfD in a nutshell.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The definitive policy is the Deletion policy; it lists the allowable 14 reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. None of those reasons apply here. If the nominator doesn’t like Columbus’s many fire stations, just avoid this article. The article is well-referenced, notable and useful. The author is to be commended for all the good work put into it. As noted, there’s more work to be done but that’s true of every article that’s not a featured article.

We have 6.7 million articles. I’m sure we have at least 100,000 real dogs to get rid of; let’s shift our deletion energies to them and leave this article and its harried author alone.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all the fretting about article quality, no comments were ever left at Talk:Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and let me get this straight. There's a set of arguments going on all over the place and this AfD, which is obviously targeting an article which passes GNG on the newspaper cites alone, was added to more or less harass a long-time productive editor because they didn't put in a couple dozen ref tags? How many articles have a couple dozen sources right off the bat? Then it's obvious that this editor has promised to continue to format the page and edit it the way he has edited many other articles, some to feature status? Why should we not trust that he'll do what he says? All of these discussions should be closed and apologies given all around. Really, this seems to be a case of eating-our-own, and shows that quite a few editors itch for a fight. I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't for the fact that all of these discussions combined have MJ considering leaving the project. Ridiculous use of pile-on, just stop it and apologizes all around for fightin'-words, and close those discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well illustrated with pics from Commons but, with many bare URLs that leads to a login page and makes mobile app readers uncomfortable, the sources from the Dispatch and others support the notability of the article despite the many sources that cannot be verifiable due to login requirements. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the sources in the article there's passages about the early Columbus fire stations on pages 90, 93 & 97 plus 2 images of Engine House no.20 in The Firehouse : An Architectural and Social history by Rebecca Zurier, available through Internet Archive. This helps partly satisfy WP:NLIST. There's sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Helpful list with sufficient sourcing, even if formatting is required. Consider a move to "List of..."? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I make no comment on the AFD but I have replaced the Columbus Metropolitan Library URLs with ones that go direct to Newsbank. Some of these URLs, in particular those which say open URL should now work for everyone. I think these also have additional details already. The other ones, I think all of the bare URLs will still at a minimum require Newsbank access. I have no idea if they still work or work for everyone with Newsbank access or only for the OP as they look to be search related URLs. But I see no reason to keep proxy URLs. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil, sorry but your link changes should be reverted. I read your comment on my talk briefly. I appreciate you trying to help, but unfortunately the non-proxy login doesn't let most library card holders in, and no Columbus library card holders in. I mentioned this bug to NewsBank months ago. They replied essentially that they don't care. And the readers of these Columbus articles are most often people from Central Ohio, so the most useful reference URL is one they can access. ɱ (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OR, actually, I found a way a few months back to include both URL forms. Which allows more access to everyone. Just takes more time to do. ɱ (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that doesn't apply to the open URL links since these can be access by anyone even without library access.

  But more importantly, if it's difficult for Columbus Metropolitan Library holders to use the direct URLs, that's unfortunate. But links to Newsbank are infinitely preferable to links to some libraries proxy. Articles should not be designed for ease of access of one particular population at the expense of the rest of the world. And you cannot assume that even people from Central Ohio will have access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library anyway.

  There are various ways people with access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library can access those URLs which are sort of beyond the scope of this discussion (e.g. it's likely they will work from an actual library computer, or they could ask a librarian for help or just manually replace the URL if they know what they're doing). But for good reasons we ultimately considered it the responsibility of readers to obtain access when we've provided sufficient information for them to do so. The URLs still aren't that but non proxy URLs are more that than proxy ones are. (I'm sure there must be a discussion about this somewhere since these sort of library proxies are very common and have been for many years.)

  P.S. If you want to revert me while you fix these URLs, go ahead provided you're going to fix them within a week or so. Note if my fix had made it more difficult for you to access these URLs or see what they are, consider this an illustration of why everyone else is so frustrated when you leave these confusing URLs.

  P.P.S. I don't want to get into this too much here but I'd also note you can't defend these as links to Newsbank implying anyone with access to Newsbank can use them, while simultaneously saying you actually want them to be links to the Columbus Metropolitan Library proxy used for Newsbank access (so only people with that particular library have access).

  Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil, please be concise with your responses! You're restating yourself, and I understand your position. Again, anyone in Ohio can apply for a free library card. These CML URLs are accessible to anyone, statewide. Both URLs should be provided, but the CML URL is actually more useful to the readership of these niche topics. ɱ (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the only article on the entire site that is a list of fire stations in the city. As a result of the conflict around this and the sources I won't be voting, but it does seem like it's up there with Bus Routes in City in terms of not meeting NLIST, even though there are notable fire stations that already have articles. I'm mostly commenting if someone wants to revisit this AfD in awhile. SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or delete. We have inscrutable references that are almost certainly local coverage anyway. Then we have patchy coverage of individual firehouses, which do not satisfy NLIST. Where are the requisite multiple SIRS sources, including at least one regional one, that show the topic as a whole is notable? This list additionally fails INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – While every small town in the U.S. doesn't need a comprehensive list of fire stations, a major city will have plentiful coverage (both in newspapers and perhaps even in books and other materials). Some stations are also notable enough for their own articles, either due to historic merit, a heritage designation, or significant coverage on its own. It sets a horrible precedent to toss out an article simply because it is sourced to a local-to-the-subject but still major regional daily newspaper. What on earth drove everyone to this end? SounderBruce 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Columbus Division of Fire. That article is basically a stub, and can easily cover this content. If that article was becoming too large to read, I'd support breaking this out as a seperate article, but in it's current state, no reason to have 2 related articles. No issues with sourcing and find the arguments made regarding them silly.Dave (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is trending towards keep, but think a merge is the best possible outcome here. There's no need for two stand-alone articles - again, this is the only list of fire stations in city X on the entire site - while we wouldn't lose any of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is the kind of list that people come to Wikipedia to find (and I generally loathe list articles). I think it needs a lot of work (which the editor is providing), but is genuinely encyclopaedic.

1. First, I think this AfD should have been procedurally closed under WP:BEFORE C4 at the very least, with good reasons also in B2, C2 (synonymous to WP:RUSH), C3 and D4. Architectural RSs alone appear to give us a reasonable assumption that additional RSs exist and the article may be ripe for improvement, not deletion.
2. That said, the article should not have been started in mainspace but in draft. I think, though, that the article is more than strong enough now to stand on its own while being improved.
3. I really do understand the nom's good-faith NLIST and GNG arguments, but I don't completely agree with them. The overall subject has (limited but existant) notability for architectural and historical reasons. The fact that a significant number of list items have noncontroversial articles is not in itself definitive, but it is indicative of notability as well.
4. I think the arguments over sourcing and source-formatting are a distraction. The sources presented are reliable and non-primary (a news article that includes or summarises historical info is generally considered secondary). For a regional subject, a regional source is reasonable and expected, and the coverage does not seem passing or trivial.
5. Lastly, it's an article that actually passes WP:SELCRIT which is a rare pearl in list AfD discussions.

Overall, I think the article improves Wikipedia and should remain in mainspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bickering aside, the topic of fire stations in a particular city clearly will have enduring coverage in local newspapers over time. Merge discussion, if any, can be held on talk page, as there is no policy-based reason to enforce one as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for what has already been said well above. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm Central Ohio based and will convert the bare urls. 9H48F (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just this article that needs worked on. There is dozens and potentially and potentially more than 100 need the bare search urls converted into a real references. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and will submit it to AFC for approval, let me know or you can go to [WP:REFUND]]. Head's up to those helpful admins who work at REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Trudeau Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find reliable, independent, indepth sources about him (so not databases, organisators, ...), just routine match coverage. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include a more homogenic set of results and backed it up with articles from an independant source (PokerNews (not exactly routine coverage)). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about him being a micro stakes qualifier doesn't take away his results (some high-stakes). In the second revision of the article I panned out his high-stakes results and in the third revision I included his most notable midstakes results. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-pro implies amateur, so there won't be much coverage... and there isn't. It's all Pokerweb sites. Gnews has nothing about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does't matter if you're a semi-professional and/or micro stakes player when you have over $3,500,000 in poker winnings. Many bracelet winning players doesn't add up to that. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we need sourcing that covers this, otherwise, we have an article only sourced to gaming websites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But PokerNews, the most frequently used source in the article, although a gaming wesite, is independant and not regulated by the poker market in itself. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if all of the PokerNews articles were SIGCOV, that would count as ONE source and the requirement for GNG is "multiple". As it is, 3/4 PokerNews articles are mentions in routine event recaps/stats, 1/4 has slightly more commentary but is still routine. The PokerGuru source is similarly deficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new source (Seminole Hard Rock Poker Open (SHRPO)) so that the article now has five sources independant to eachother. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source covers his biggest score to date ($352,200). That alone should merit noteworthyness regardless of a (factual) news article. Many news articles copies their material from poker articles anyway. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is solely dependent on the amount and depth of coverage in independent secondary RS, not on level of accomplishment. If news articles are just copying announcements from poker outlets then those aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SHRPO is obviously not an independent source on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backed up his Main Event results with two new refs (ESPN Sports). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But again, these are brief mentions in routine tournament recaps. NOTNEWS makes it clear that routine sports reports are not enough for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Guy did stuff, scored 12345" is about what each source says, loooong way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by GameTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, primary or unreliable sources. Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search only showed primary sources. FlutterDash344 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An all-repeat channel (outside fad distractions and oddball deals); we don't usually do lists articles (much less lists) for networks not made up of any original content. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only this article fails for notability, most of the sources are poorly sourced. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. We should only show programming listings for channels with original content, none of this is. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Cruises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Solely Promotional article, and not a notable company. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Search shows this may have been renamed "City Experiences" but even under that search term I cannot find enough to meet WP:NCORP. Was going to suggest a merge to Hornblower Cruises but I also cannot find a reliable source to confirm that company purchased this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems unlikely that enough notable sources can be found to bring this article up to NCORP viability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does not seem to be enough sources to meet WP:NCORP and it reads like an advertisement. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Folgueira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers - can't find anything decent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. and lightly salted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

seemingly a case of repeated creation, pseudoscience, and not particularly notable. would recommend salting as well DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi. Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like this was recreated by the same author. It also does not seem to be notable. FlutterDash344 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Giant Spider Invasion Redirect to Wild Wild West#Writing Delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A collection of anecdotes with nothing holding them together but WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder if the article would be slightly more acceptable as Great spiders, instead of sort of focusing on one Nessie, "the creature" per current lead. Still, current sources aren't great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• G4 Speedy delete and salt - Inappropriate repeat re-creation. The notability and source reliability issues raised in the previous AfDs still stand. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the purported creature has been listed in several more sources in the intervening years and is found in at least four published fiction works [added to the article], I thought that another stab at this would be appropriate. Marino73 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being in fiction doesn't really help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Magalhães (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Haylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Honduras. JTtheOG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable sportsperson. I was unable to find significant in-depth coverage. FlutterDash344 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovro Benić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Benić very briefly had a professional career until around 2014, after which he disappeared into the lower levels. The article is only supported by database sources, so doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. This Croatian source search yielded no significant coverage. SportCom is not significant coverage as it's just an interviewer asking him for opinions on the season and contains no third party coverage of Benić at all. All other coverage seems to be just pure stats like Soccerzz. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lack of GNG sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Albania women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floralba Krasniqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Albania women's international footballers. The subject has appeared for the Albania women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Albania, and Austria. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect The subject is not notable enough to have an article of their own. Nothing like in-depth coverage. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. SouthernNights (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing_of_Tahir_Naseem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article is not notable enough to have its own designated Wikipedia page, there have been a total of 4 edits in 3 years and it is a one paragraph long article with no relevance or large media presence. Also a consideration for the children of the named person and family, a permanent internet reminder is not ideal.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete There is not a country in this world where unfortunately these random killings don't occur. This is an encyclopedia and not a local newspaper. WP:NOTEVERYTHING...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. This is a mistaken AfD. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here, neither does consideration for the families -- there's more than enough already on the Internet about this case. This was not your average local case, nor random, but a case that garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in international media for several years. More than enough coverage in a wide number of WP:RS to justify including on Wikipedia at a minimum, or even keeping this article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot just say either merge or keep as a way to force your opinion as if there are just those two options screams of arrogance ,deletion is very much a considered option,

  There’s no relevance what so ever these cases happen all of the time and don’t have their own Wikipedia articles otherwise we might aswell make Wikipedia a news site .

  There is media attention about Karen from Gloucester who got drunk and spat at the doorman on the local pub , she doesn’t have a Wikipedia . 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C1A3:8979:3AF9:4D6A (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. And hardly a routine case as alleged above. Not many people are murdered in courtrooms because of their religion. The fact that the nominator has never made any other contributions to Wikipedia is also unusual. Few editors start their Wikipedia career by nominating an article for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:EVENT including WP:PERSISTENCE with, for example some coverage in a paper from 2 years after the incident (published in hard copy 3 years after incident) [7] and sigcov in an Oxford University Press book 2 years after the event, [8]. —siroχo 04:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Siroxo's research. Redirecting to List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan seems inappropriate, as the charge appears to be pretextual for a judicial murder. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - Garbage news not notable enough for a Wikipedia article , one paragraph in length it’s embarrassing . 86.169.18.103 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a WP:STUB, which is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above besides the article has improved a fair bit. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Improved by you? makes no sense to improve an article to prevent it being deleted . bias, seems like admins got together to try and stop removal. 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C5AB:18BE:FFB:2773 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, assume good faith. If you'd like to learn a bit about improving articles nominated for deletion, consider reading WP:HEY. —siroχo 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International rugby league in 2018. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific Rugby League Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Oceania, Australia, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2018. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and convert to redirect. I completely agree with J Mo 101. WP isn't solely a database, and necessary elements of a database needed on Wikipedia should be prosified. I would suggest that this standard apply to all pages and separate articles when article size isn't an issue. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International rugby league in 2017. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pacific Rugby League Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2017. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International rugby league in 2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Pacific Rugby League Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2016 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, Oceania, Australia, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2016. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International rugby league in 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pacific Rugby League Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here has now been merged with International rugby league in 2010. Pacific games don't need there own page, especially how small it is per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2010. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Randers FC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dronningborg Boldklub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Amateur FC. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Randers FC, doesn't look to be independently notable. GiantSnowman 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ship classification society. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dromon Bureau of Shipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced and no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Egypt, Tanzania, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Belize, and Panama. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect >>> ship classification society Djflem (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I left notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. I'm not seeing any significant mentions in Google Books or Google Scholar on a quick search. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In effect completely unreferenced - the second ref refers to one minor fact, and the first one doesn't have anything relevant to the article. It has no content that is not just repeated from the company's own website. There's no point in a redirect to ship classification society since that article is about what the class societies do, and the only mention of Dromon is in a non-exhaustive list - it can stay there as an entry (in black). Davidships (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, doesn't begin to meet guidance at WP:NCORP.Davidships (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Administration of Dromon Bureau of Shipping,

DBS should be listed on Wikipedia because it is a notable international classification society and certification organization within the maritime industry. It plays a vital role in ensuring the safety and quality of ships and maritime operations, which is of significant importance globally.

DBS operates on a global scale, providing services to a wide range of maritime stakeholders, including shipowners, shipbuilders, and regulatory bodies. Its activities impact the safety, environmental sustainability, and regulatory compliance of maritime operations worldwide.

There are verifiable and reliable sources available that document DBS's history, operations, and contributions to the maritime sector. These sources, including industry publications, official reports, and academic studies, provide a solid foundation for creating a well-referenced Wikipedia article.

DBS's involvement in maritime classification and certification involves adherence to international standards and regulations. Documenting its role on Wikipedia can help educate readers about the importance of classification societies in maintaining safety standards within the shipping industry.

Listing DBS on Wikipedia can serve an educational purpose by providing a comprehensive and impartial overview of its activities, responsibilities, and the broader context of maritime classification. This information can benefit students, researchers, and the general public seeking knowledge about the maritime sector.

Classification societies like DBS play a critical role in ensuring the safety and compliance of vessels. Articles about DBS can shed light on their contributions to maritime safety, which is an essential aspect of the industry.

In summary, Dromon Bureau of Shipping merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to its notability, global impact, the availability of verifiable information, its role in maritime regulations, and its potential educational value to readers interested in the maritime industry.

Awaiting your feedback. 81.4.153.226 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) — 81.4.153.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I hear what you’re saying but we have internal requirements that require us to delete the article as presently written. Perhaps you can help - please read WP:NORG and WP:RS. If you have references that satisfy those requirements, that would be great. Otherwise our rules require us to delete this article as unverifiable.

The ball’s in your court now.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect Per above; no sources in Google News, and the article is somehow not written like other articles, containing a long heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToadetteEdit (talk • contribs) 08:21 3 September 2023 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Donnelly (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and New Zealand. UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This person does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST. Mostly what was found online is social media and blogs. There is a little local human-interest coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG; I can't find anything that one would normally see like reviews of his work in notable art magazine, museum collections, etc. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not find good sources for this person. Lots of Peter Donnellys, but this one is not notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Deschouwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both the Chaire d'honneur de la Ville de Lausanne and the Binnenlandse Francqui Leerstoel aan de ULB [9] might plausibly pass WP:PROF#C5, and I found maybe five published reviews of three of his books on JSTOR and Google Scholar, enough for a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. Article needs updating (he is emeritus professor now) but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of those are listed as "prizes" here: https://researchportal.vub.be/en/persons/kris-deschouwer. So I think you're right about the C5. -- asilvering (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep also passes C#8 as editor of the European Journal of Political Research between 2003 and 2009. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VFL Development League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Teratix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Skynxnex (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spyros Spyrou (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not demonstrated and never won a medal; seems comparable to a Lugstub. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Cyprus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Spyros Spyrou (runner) Meets WP:NTRACK per “1.” with his 6th place at the Athletics at the 1982 Commonwealth Games – Men's 800 metres and per “2.” Winning multiple gold medals at the Games of the Small States of Europe. He set the national record in 1983; and that is still the Cypriot national record. Because he was internationally active between 1981 and 1989, sources should be searched at off-line and Greek language sources. 109.37.152.36 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable runner who competed at the top level of the sport internationally for many years and is one of Cyprus's best ever distance runners. Has held the Cypriot national record for decades – a fact still mentioned in Cypriot press to this day. SFB 16:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The sources on the page do not show the subject meets GNG, and no one here has presented any additional citations. SPORTSBASIC requires a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article for additional coverage to be presumed, and even that is rebuttable. Meeting NTRACK is irrelevant when SPORTSBASIC is failed.
Keep per SIGCOV in documentary suggestive of multiple other sources of GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NTRACK might still be relevant as it states “coverage is likely to exist” of this athlete; and looking at the era of his active years coverage would be in offline Greek sources. As we don’t have access to offline Greek sources the sentence “coverage is likely to exist” cannot be invalidated, and I assume this is one of the reasons why NTRACK exist. 109.37.152.3 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage is likely to exist if they meet SPORTSBASIC. If they don't have a piece of SIGCOV cited then none of the presumptions from NTRACK apply. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that I amended my !vote in response to the documentary source -- apparently editing a comment doesn't show up in watchlists) JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]