< December 12	December 14 >

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything[edit]

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

The arguments against this page had been listed in June 2022 at Talk:John D. MacDonald#Merger Proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then redirect, per said discussion. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, as this article was BOLDly merged without opposition, and categorized ((R from merge)). Today, the nominator restored the article and placed the AfD notice in a single edit[1] today. As this was merged, it is both unnecessary to delete, and we'd be deleting history of a merged article. —siro χ o 03:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above aside, I lean keep on this now that the BRD cycle has progressed. This seems to meet WP:GNG.
1. Analog Vol. LXXII, No. 1, September 1963, p. 94 has a review.
2. Anatomy of Wonder vol. 4 p. 176 has an entry with SIGCOV.
3. New York Times has a capsule review [2] 07 Apr 1963.
4. There's some SIGCOV in this Booklist article from 2006: [3]
5. ISFDB also points us to some more reviews [4]:
  1. Review by Judith Merril (1965) in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1965
  2. Review by Spider Robinson (1979) in Destinies, April-June 1979
    Review by Spider Robinson (1979) in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, May 1979
  3. Review by David Pringle (1988) in Modern Fantasy: The Hundred Best Novels.

—siro χ o 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our article needs better sourcing and some cruft-clearing, but in addition to the above reviews, there's a chapter titled after this book (and maybe about it? ProQuest is misbehaving for me currently) in a 1979 Ph.D. thesis, "Invisibility as a significant motif in western literature: its attainment, use, and moral consequences", Bonnie Coleman Wimberly, Florida State University, 1979. I was hoping that maybe a more recent source could point out the problematic aspects of the happy-go-lucky sexual-assault plot summary (which hasn't aged well) but that would take actually being able to read the source. We could at least make an attempt at editing the plot summary to be more neutral rather than writing e.g. "relatively innocuous practical jokes such as completely undressing women" (??!) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to access the Ph.D. thesis through a VPN. The (five page) chapter is entirely about the book. No dice on a more modern view on the problematic plot, though: it paints the hero as extremely moral, in contrast to the villains of the story, and talks about his sexual assaults of bystanders as "pranks of a hilarious nature". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews in Analog, one in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, plus other sources found above. Easy keep per WP:NBOOK, GNG and common sense, WP:TROUT the nom for not even checking ISFDb list of reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK per sources presented above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: easily meets NBOOK per sources identified above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the basis of 2 movies (both having Wikipedia articles) & introducing a trope that has been frequently reused ought to be sufficient to prove notability. -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:08, 20 December 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!} 23:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WUVI-LD[edit]

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

Another non-notable LPTV. Just two sentences in the whole article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable TV. Not supporting its deletion because it used only two sentences but because I can't find sources that demonstrate its notability. if articles such is this is allowed then all non notable media channels would be dumped here. Metroick (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found to show this subject meets the GNG. A note to the nominator though, just because the article is a stub is not a reason on its own to delete. User:Let'srun 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable TV lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: one primary source does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 20 December 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!} 23:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zil Money[edit]

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

Sources are mostly press releases, most likely doesn’t meet WP:NCORP. It reads like an advert as well. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, India, Brazil, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PRSOURCE nearly all the sources on the page are non-significant, so this fails WP:NCORP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article heavily or wholly relies on press releases. Of all sources cited I can't find a reliable source that demonstrates its notability. Metroick (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources. In 2023, everyone knows that not a free web host nor a directory of ordinary businesses. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 20 December 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. Subject fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Facciola[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; very little sourcing for a biographical article Snickers2686 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found plenty of passing mentions about this person, but nothing substantial. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE. User:Let'srun 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - Based on the info, John M. Facciola appears to meet the notability criteria for Judges and legal professionals on Wikipedia WP:LEGALBIO. His long-term service as a United States magistrate judge, his prior roles as an Assistant District Attorney and in private practice, and his academic contributions as an adjunct professor and legal scholar all contribute to his notability. Additionally, his written opinions on electronic discovery and related legal matters, along with his recognition by the legal community, further establish his notability within his field. The references cited suggest that there is coverage of Facciola's judicial and academic work in reliable sources, supporting the case for possibly entertaining the Idea of retaining his article on Wikipedia.

PD Slessor (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Keep vote provided no sources to eval. // Timothy :: talk 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy, GNG not met with sources here. BLP requires high levels of sourcing and this doesn't meet it. Daniel (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some evidence that he has been "recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law," and might meet my own longstanding standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 20 December 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!} 08:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alacritech[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIRS, has not received significant coverage from reliable sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, Software, and California. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of sources. I couldn't find any significant articles to even attempt notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salimata Ndiaye[edit]

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

The subject, a Senegalese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Senegal. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 13 December 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!} 23:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyank Shah[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. References are either about the company, mentions, or otherwise unreliable (note - WP:NEWSORGINDIA). CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the sources I can find do not provide significant visage and are possibly promotional. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 14:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 20 December 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, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Maps[edit]

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

Obscure map publisher, fails WP:SIRS and only cites company's website DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Geography, and California. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nomination. This is an insignificant company that lacks any notability. Lack potential for an article. Paul H. (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage appears to exist for this, see [[5]], [[6]] (part 2), [[7]], [[8]]. However, it appears this likely doesn't meet the WP:NCORP, but I'm curious to hear what others think. Let'srun (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently-provided sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on new sources. Would be nice to have a more diverse range of media documenting the company, but I think that's enough to just barely pass WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Subject just barely meets the WP:NCORP with the sources I found earlier, combined with [[9]], there is just enough for a keep. User:Let'srun 14:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, but if and only if, somebody adds the citations to this stub. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 20 December 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 someone wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic (2025 film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. References are of an announcement for the film (about five days ago) so this is likely WP:TOOSOON. I would redirect to Yash but the notability tag was removed so I am assuming the redirect would be objected to as well so letting users decide at AfD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. There's no mention of the film at Yash (actor). Esolo5002 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I do understand that principal photography has not started yet and it will begin soon. It can be redirected to Yash (actor) or Geetu Mohandas. Manthara^talk 02:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF, filming hasn't begun. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has only just been announced and there are no reports that filming has begun. Draftifying might be acceptable, but note that there is a (poor) draft of this same subject at Draft:Toxic (film). Definitely do not redirect to Yash (actor). Also delete the redirect at TOXIC (film). — Archer (t·c) 04:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I move the existing page Toxic (2025 film) to Draft:Toxic (film)? — Manthara^talk 09:13, 16 December 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!} 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Soskoy[edit]

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

Footballer with very minor professional career and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC has been provided. Even prior to WP:NSPORTS2022, this would have been a deletion candidate as he only played 10 minutes at professional level and has no apparent significant coverage. The best Indonesian source that I could find was Indosport, which was a squad list mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 14 December 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 Tap and flap consonants. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced palatal tap and flap[edit]

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

The only source listed that attests to the presence of this sound in a language says they're not sure if it's velar or palatal. And it's a conference paper from 2022. In addition to lacking significant coverage, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:NOTLEAD may apply here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiced velar tap (2nd nomination). Nardog (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reprisal on the page is practically due to the confusion of the palatal and velar points of articulation, however Morris Halle, whom Akinbo cites, describes the coalescence of velar consonants to genuinely possible palatal consonants, just as the palatal velum cannot contract enough to produce a sound acoustically distinct from /g/ or /ɣ/, making the hard palate more conducive to the articulation of a tap, just as purely palatal consonants are more phonemically rare than their velar counterparts, just as many of these consonants are allophones of velar consonants. Furthermore, the page does not involve original research, as the source that genuinely supports the page is Palatalization/velar softening: What it is and what it tells us about the nature of language from the Latvianman, who this source cites, and the lacking significant coverage is because the source material is protected by copyright such as the page "voiceless labiodental nasal" had been deleted due to possible copyright infringement, I didn't take any chances. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On which page does that paper discuss Latvian or a tap/flap? Nardog (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Given cross-linguistic evidence that velar softening mostly results in palatalization (Halle 2005) and the charcoal stain on the participant’s

velum and hard palate in the palatograms, we note however that the intervocalic

velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is also unattested but

predicted to be possible." Did you happen to read the article? The Young Prussian (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is Akinbo et al., not Halle. Again, on which page does Halle say anything about a tap? Nardog (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halle does not explicitly talk about the tap, Akinbo quotes him as mentioning the tap, which in turn is what suggests the existence of a palatal tap through a consonant mutation.

Latvian=Halle The Young Prussian (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which runs directly counter to the statement you inserted here. Nardog (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was because I put the wrong reference, it was [1] from Akinbo and [3] from Ladefoged. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" in WP:GNG doesn't mean an article has to cover the subject significantly, it means the subject has to be covered significantly in reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that you attest that the article was constructed through original research, which is not true, a low source does not mean original research, as the only source attests to the possibility of palatal tap, and Ladefoged attests to the impossibility of a velar tap, WP:NOTLEAD should not apply here, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not enough to delete a page or move it to a draft. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that a 2022 conference paper said that "the intervocalic velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is ... unattested but predicted to be possible." All I'm saying is that that does not amount to significant coverage needed for the subject to be notable to have its own article, or to exceptional evidence needed to support the exceptional claim that a sound hitherto unattested occurs in a language. Nardog (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even from the little reference, there are more sources in favor of a palatal tap than a velar tap, as happened with the so-called "velar click" which was only found as an interjection for "yes" in some African languages much later , just like the locus that contains it on the IPA chart is grayed out to this day, and yet there are no sources that oppose the linguistic existence of a palatal tap, the super-exceptional "voiceless bilabially post-trilled dental stop" and "Trilled affricate" discovered yesterdecade and present in a small number of languages is also the same case and none of this contradicts the creation of a page for palatal tap. The Young Prussian (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It turned out that I had confused coalescence (linguistics) with consonant mutation, because I hadn't remember the technical term. The Young Prussian (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tap and flap consonants: the single primary source is sufficient to assert verifiability, but not notability. We don't need to adjudicate whether the sound is velar or palatal. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tap and flap consonants per OwenX. This information should be mentioned somewhere but not notable for a page. The proposed target appears optimal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatevik Manukyan[edit]

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

The subject, an Armenian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. I was barely even able to find mentions of the subject. Not to be confused with the politician of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBLP. Being listed on a statistics page does not count as a notable source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiatou Diourthe[edit]

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

The subject, a Malian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I was barely even able to find mentions of the subject (1). JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBLP. No significant sources given; not everyone on every team deserves an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 14 December 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 Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lagutkina[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:53, 14 December 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!} 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Gold Radio[edit]

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

A small company that previously owned a single radio station in the UK. I'm not even sure what this article is trying to say - the "2011 changes" section seems to be very obscure insider stuff. I'm not seeing anything here to prove notability, and nothing is coming up on a search except for links back to this article and an unrelated internet radio station with the same name. Flip Format (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability I could find online. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, and the two sources given don't strike me as reliable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:01, 14 December 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. Subject fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. What coverage does exist is almost entirely passing mentions in articles about cases that she's served on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ryu[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 01:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - — Maile (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 why? JM (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JM2023 are you asking because I didn't specify a reason? I did that deliberately, because I just didn't want to get into a round-robin discussion about "not inherently notable". Be that as it may, I think her overall body of work is impressive - at least, as far as the info given in this article. In particular, her work on behalf of "Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco". — Maile (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps that case should have the article, not the living person, per WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
indeed JM (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in the Coalition on Homelessness case rises to the level of GNG. --Nouspleut (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — Nouspleut (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Slowking4 (talk · contribs). [reply]
I wonder if the case should have the article then. People notable for one event are not notable people. JM (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems that what's notable here is the Coalition on Homelessness case. JM (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Our criteria for notability in this instance is WP:JUDGE, not a prior deletion discussion. She is a long-serving judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A significant number of judges serving in this court have a Wikipedia article, demonstrating that the Wikipedia community has decided this is a significant appointment. This article has sources to back its notability. Rublamb (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a magistrate judge, which is a much lesser role within the judiciary system and does not meet WP:JUDGE as she has never been a judge on a statewide court. To my knowledge, no other magistrate judges in this district have wikipedia articles, and even if they do, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST applies. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appear to be more than passing mentions about her work, in addition to the coverage of the Coalition on Homelessness case (I have added a few sources, more coverage is available); there is coverage of e.g. her decision on rent control for houseboats (KTVU, Nov 2023; East Bay Times, Nov 2023, "In a landmark decision by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu..."); Judge narrows privacy case against fintech firm Plaid (Reuters, May 2021); Judge gives Biden, Blinken 60 days to respond to Gaza ‘genocide’ claim (SF Chronicle, Nov. 2023, "Ryu, a magistrate appointed by the court’s judges, is assigned to the case, but either side could have her removed and replaced by a presidentially appointed federal judge."). And there is coverage such as "in 2010, U.S. District Court judges in San Francisco appointed Donna Ryu, a civil rights attorney and UC Hastings law professor, as a federal magistrate. No openly gay or lesbian judicial officer had ever served on the court." (SFGate, 2014, with further biographical information about Ryu). Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources and her accolades show notability DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we have to evaluate this with NOTNEWS in mind, and in particular how news discussion of her rulings should be interpreted re: direct coverage of her and how routine it is. It is not unexpected for a magistrate judge's rulings to receive decent local coverage, but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic info that is DUE in a biography. The importance of her role in particular would need to be discussed substantially for such reports on court cases to be SIGCOV, and I'm not seeing that so far. Simply presiding over a case does not mean the coverage of the case transitively applies to the person, not least because the facts/filings of a case, which are generally the bulk of reported material, are completely independent of the judge's actions.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 20 December 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. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpiling (Internet)[edit]

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. The mishmash collection of sources are about online harrassment in general, and at best mentions dogpiling in passing, failing WP:PASSING. Above all, it is not clear how dogpiling on the Internet is a distinct concept from when dogpiling occurs as a part of harrassment in a more enclosed group; a school setting, a workplace etc. (other than in scale, of course). Surely, dogpiling has existed in all social settings throughout history where you have a leader and others who latch on (examples from Greek Antiquity: ostracism, demagogue etc.).

The page even has an image, a staged picture showing a single derogatory message. A single message doesn't constitute dogpiling, and it only serves to highlight how confused this entry is. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PEN America ([10]), Social Media & Society ([11]), NPR affiliate KQED ([12]), and Media Defence ([13]) have all discussed this concept, among others. Sure, the term is often folded in with other forms of abuse in those pieces, and SAGE journals are often questionable, but that's just what I found in five minutes of Googling. The article definitely needs work but the concept has attention from secondary sources, and is sufficiently distinct from similar phenomena offline to be worth an article of its own. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this is a distinct phenomenon and there are enough potential sources that exist, even if they are not (yet) referenced in the article. I'll try and make a few improvements to the article when I have time, as I agree it's not in particularly good condition. I particularly enjoy the hilariously inappropriate image which fails to depict the one significant characteristic aspect of dogpiling [i.e. that multiple actors should be involved]. Akakievich (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin: I contend that WeirdNAnnoyed's sources are nowhere near enough to save this article, seeing as 1, 2 and 4 are passing mentions. In the latter, dogpiling is not even discussed in a full sentence, only a fragment of a sentence. Ref 3 is a personal account which does not have the gravitas in the encyclopedic context to support dogpiling as an encyclopedic subject. I also contend that Akakievich does not address the concerns voiced in the nomination text, i.e. that dictionary definitions are disallowed on Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur that the present article content is a dictionary definition of Cyberbullying performed by a group. While I found several additional academic sources by searching for Networked harassment, it already exists as a redirect to a section about online shaming. Online shaming has its own article, the scope of which (see Description) duplicates the scope of Dogpiling (Internet), making it a Wikipedia:Content fork. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the terms 'online shaming' and 'dogpiling' are necessarily equivalent. I'm saying that Examples of online abuse include flaming, doxing (online release of personal information without consent), impersonation, and public shaming. (Dogpiling (Internet)) and Online shaming is a form of public shaming in which internet users are harassed, mocked, or bullied by other internet users online. (Online shaming) make scopes of these two article nearly indistinguishable.

As an alternative to deletion, I support merge to either Online harassment or Online shaming. I see the former target preferable regardless of its size as it already discusses Hate raids and Online shaming (suggesting it may be possible to integrate the content without increasing article size), as well as considering the proposal on the article's talk page: Talk:Cyberbullying#Adding_section_on_networked_harassment. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles appear to satisfy WP:GNG on their own: [14] (half a page) [15] (~2 paragraphs and two quotes) [16] (a bit over a paragraph) [17] (only uses the term briefly but discusses the concept in decent detail). The last source emphasises that dogpiling is distinct from cyberbullying as its motives are often different (i.e. to pursue a sense of justice).

As a second option, I would suggest merging to online harassment, or even online shaming. But the former article is far WP:TOOBIG for a merge anyway, at 10505 words. It should arguably be split into a "by country" article and a "general" article... But that aside, the best that could be done with the dogpiling article is improving and adding it in summary style there, mainly to rescue the existing citations of which some are good to use. Merging to online shaming is a bit questionable to me as it's not really clear to me what the difference is between online shaming and online harassment, and I don't think the goal of dogpiling is always shaming. Perhaps those articles could be merged, but that looks like a major undertaking. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article offers historical context, particularly in relation to significant events like the Gamergate campaign, underscoring its relevance in contemporary discussions about internet safety and digital citizenship. Retaining and improving this article aligns with Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive and neutral information, thereby aiding awareness, research, etc.--Loewstisch (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. I've been dogpiled here, so I know it exists, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed in sufficient secondary and independent reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 20 December 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 all to their respective United States-X articles. If anyone wishes to merge any content, they can from the history behind the redirect, but I note AirshipJungleman29's comment which believes there isn't much (if anything) to merge. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Vilnius[edit]

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

As the articles say nothing about the embassies, and as articles already exist covering bilateral relations, these should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Morocco, Mongolia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Costa Rica, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: These pages mention the circumstances around the founding of the embassies, as well as basic information such as pictures and addresses (distinct from bilateral relations) – Kjerish (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not a directory, for one. For another, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Finally, “circumstances around the founding of the embassies” pertain to bilateral relations, not to the commissioning and execution of the embassy building projects. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to their respective bilateral relations per WP:NOPAGE. None of these have enough content to stand on their own. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all content fork of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would suggest merging per WP:NOPAGE, but I don't see anything worthy to be merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect/merge with Mongolia–United States relations - not much to merge but the mention of Denver Street and Steven Mann as the first resident official would be useful in the relations article. --chinneeb-talk 02:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Embassy of the United States, Skopje. No comment with respect to the others. The redirect was fine in my opinion, and it should be restored if this is closes as delete. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all to respective United States–X articles. I don't get why you would make an article about an embassy but then write little to nothing about the embassy and instead write about the history of their diplomacy. There's already an article for that, as well as for the list of ambassadors. Those articles can also mention something about the establishment of the embassy when there's not enough sourcing on the building itself. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 14 December 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 The Simpsons (franchise)#Board and card games. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Trading Card Game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any web sources besides Simpsons or game fansites, couldn't find any books that had more than a mention. QuietCicada - Talk 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Games. QuietCicada - Talk 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same consensus reached when this last when to afd just over 10 years ago, as the same issues are prevalent and it is no more notable now than then. Would weakly support a redirect to The Simpsons#Merchandise if there is any interest in an WP:AFD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Simpsons (franchise)#Board and card games: it is mentioned there, so this seems like a logical-enough alternative to deletion. The last AfD supposedly resulted in a redirect to The Simpsons#Merchandise (which, 11 years later, still mentions it as well), though (if I'm reading them correctly) the logs and page histories don't seem to bear that out; the franchise article seems more like a logical target to me, though. It would certainly appear that, from a notability standpoint, all that has changed here since 2012 is that our standards may be tighter, and considering consensus did not favor keeping an article on this card game then… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Simpsons (franchise)#Board and card games. Non-notable and lacks any quality secondary sources. I think a brief mention is probably more appropriate on the page of the franchise rather than of the primary work, given it's scarcely mentioned anywhere. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salvage what you can. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Abidjan[edit]

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

Pointless article. The only bit that’s actually about the embassy, about the new building, is already mentioned at Ivory Coast–United States relations. The rest duplicates that article. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put a serious halt to the long series of embassy spam. Almost nothing in the article is about the physical embassy, and there is no indication yet that such a topic would be viable. ~~

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 Armenia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gohar Armenyan[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with restricted online functionality[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as these examples often can only be sourced from primary publisher announcements or secondary sources just repeating the announcements without any further reporting. This article included "This knowledge is important when buying used / old games and emphasizes the dependency on online services the publisher provides." in the body from its fifth edit until I removed it just now, indicating a WP:USEFUL-type (<- essay) misunderstanding of notability. Also, "restricted online functionality" can mean anything from "the leaderboards don't work" to "the game is completely gone". QuietCicada - Talk 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure what the scope is here. What is meant by "restricted"? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gaming servers shut down as time passes, this really isn't notable. I wouldn't expect a 15 yr old PS3 game to still work online. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. If this somehow survives this AFD, a rename discussion needs to happen. I think this article is trying to document games with online components that, over time, were made inactive/unplayable. The fact that I (and others) are unsure is a pretty strong argument that its current title is terrible. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymesonny[edit]

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

complete blackhat SEO nonsense and otherwise non RS - this is a spam campaign, straight up, trying to fabricate notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The BBC one is likely the best source, but it's just a feature piece on this person. The rest are non-RS. I can't find much else. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae @Oaktree b there is a little comprehension why this has been nominated for deletion even after it went through the regular AFC submission process and spent a number of days there.

How do you only say that the BBC is the only notable source when other sources like the world Bank's official website have been used?

Is this a case of trying to reduce notability to the platform? What happened to independence of the source? What happened to linked articles where the subject has been mentioned right here on Wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia only for people who are featured on BBC, CNN and Fox News? How many people can BBC realistically cover.

Wikipedia is for everyone so why does this feel sentimental?

First, @Praxidicae reverted to draft space because of a purported conflict of interest due to the use of a picture. Then i had to edit it and submit through AFC. The draft review team judged it against all Wikipedia guidelines and deemed it fit to be on Wikipedia. Now you @Praxidicae have returned with the motion to delete based on what you call "fabricated notability". When does this end, tell me? There is not a single case about any policy it violates so tell us why you believe this should be deleted?

Are you aware of the sourcing gaps that exist about African content, the level of misinformation and the apparent lack of significant coverage on some notable people, events and parts of history? If you wish to write off some sources, how exactly do you expect that content gap on African content to reduce.

These guidelines are not a one-size-fits-all and you have to understand that not all subject matter will receive standard referencing. Heatrave (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source bot hasn't identified them as reliable. I may have to re-review them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bot identified and removed the sources and i had to find other sources. Then i discovered that the references have been removed again. At this rate, i will have to remove the attached statements not because they are not true but because the sources are extremely limited. Heatrave (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article should be subject to deletion. In fact, I find everything extremely credible. I am, frankly, frustrated with the fact that this was ever nominated for deletion. Does everyone have to be already well linked in with the rich and famous to deserve a wikipedia page? This Rhymesonny artist is clearly a person of great talent and moment in their art form and region. They deserve to have their page remain listed. HelpfulHannah23 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not GhanaWeb and Pulse Ghana. I consider them utterly unreliable and as such this fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces as editors we have little to no control over the sources we find as some of the information was published more than a decade ago. We try as much as possible to use sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. Unfortunately, these sources do not write with the Wikipedia referencing in mind. If we decide to be strict, we may never get sources for any articles we write from the already fewer options available. Heatrave (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this fails GNG as there isn't multiple independent sources providing significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 21 December 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 (weakly). Daniel (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kobla Ladzekpo[edit]

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

At present, the article doesn't indicate that Kobla Ladzekpo meets NBIO, [WP:NMUSIC

Comment: This mention in the New York Times [18] and this [19] seem to hint at notability, I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Dance, Ghana, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There are sources, such as this Los Angeles Times, that are significant enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep just enough with the sources above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Is notable, but poorly. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:35, 18 December 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 Characters of the Metal Gear series. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otacon[edit]

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

In its current state, the article does not demonstrate the notability of Otacon, with a reception section made up entirely of lists that mean nothing, some of which could be considered questionable for inclusion such as "greatest Jewish characters in video games". My WP:BEFORE searches on WP:VG/SE, Google Books, and Google Scholar didn't seem to demonstrate anything that wasn't either plot summaries on analysis' on the themes of Metal Gear Solid 2. Would love to be proven wrong here, but Otacon unfortunately does not seem to be a character with standalone notability. NegativeMP1 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some possible examples of reception in reliable sources, but it may not be enough. I couldn't find anything major about him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series. The source is made up of very little significant commentary other than listicles and even Zx's sources don't seem like enough to save it. I feel there is some content worth merging though, hence why I believe this is a good AtD. It's a shame, since it feels like there would be a lot more analysis given Otacon's character in the series, but alas. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't feel lime the sources presented above would be enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wasn't able to find much either. I feel the assertion Pokelego made is correct.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series, does not seem like he is independently notable with the sources I could find. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Dudebro II[edit]

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

No sustained notability, merge with NeoGAF IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD per the sources added IgelRM (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Failed video game, but there was enough coverage about it in RS, should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Failed" is irrelevant. I'm recommending a merge (of what is mergeable) because it fails WP:NSUSTAINED IgelRM (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a place for merge proposals, see how to start a merge discussion at WP:PAM (mainly the "How to propose a merger" section). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but merge is still a common for AFDs and a merge would require condensing the article. IgelRM (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It won't have sustained coverage, it's dead. It meets GNG requirements with what's given already. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful on GNG for a separate article with the sources about its NeoGAF origin. But I added Bitmob and RedBull articles mentioning "Dudebro" as a meme in gaming communities, which might have GNG outside NeoGAF. IgelRM (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game might be cringe and also in development hell and/or cancelled, but it got WP:SIGCOV and that will never change. Wikipedia has never restricted games from having articles simply because they "failed" (otherwise, stuff like Hyenas (video game) wouldn't exist). Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball and games can be restarted and finished at any time (see Metroid Dread) so it is not in our purview to cast judgement on whether a game is truly "dead" or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And because I missed what the nomination was actually saying, yes it did get WP:SUSTAINED. Two sources are two years apart. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Verge source is from 2012. Although that is still more about the NeoGAF origin than the game, right? But it might be better to trim the article and perhaps consider a normal merger (like suggested above). IgelRM (talk) 12:50, 14 December 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. Reliable Sources Have been Found (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Junior & Senior High School of Nihon University[edit]

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

Non-Notable School, only one reference which is the schools own website, cited for expansion since 2019. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Even though I as nominator have decided to keep the article we are NOT CLOSING this discussion for the time being as we are waiting for input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google News search for the school's Japanese name brings up well over 30,000 results. Google Books also brings up quite a few results. While I haven't gone through them all, unless the nominator has, there's little doubt that this is a highly notable high school affiliated with Nihon University. WP:GLOBAL is relevant here. DCsansei (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCsansei I can't translate those pages so i'll have to take your word for it, but could you provide a source analysis table to better show how some of them meet GNG? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, you're supposed to do a search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. As it notes: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." If you haven't done this and reviewed the literal tens of thousands Japanese-language sources about a high school in Japan, then it seems that this nomination is premature. DCsansei (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a google search, the minimum search expected is ONE of the ones you listed not ALL, and the google search ended up with no Reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally I would have conducted at least single search with the official English name and a separate search with the Japanese name, as reliable sources are more likely to be numerous in Japanese. Also, there may be variant English names in which the Japanese name is translated differently. Anyway, I asked for help at ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo to get input from Japanese editors on how to find reliable sources for this topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe Thanks, after looking at the Japanese article I no longer feel this article should be deleted, but the Japanese article is cited for insufficient references from reliable sources, & I can't read Japanese so I would have no Idea weather or not a source is even about the school let alone if it is reliable. I am not going to google translate every single link I click on when looking for sources, so hopefully someone on that noticeboard will be able to help. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have translated a few pages & added them to the article. Hopefuly we will get feedback from the ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo on where to find reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have decided to keep the article(as nom) but we are NOT CLOSING it, due to waiting for input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo, we want to get as reliable sources as we can, as we don't speak japanese & are not from japan so we don't know which sources are truly reliable, we have found a few with significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember !voting in this Discussion has been put on Hold as we are Waiting for Input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo, you are welcome to list any sources(preferably in Japanese) with significant coverage that seem reliable. And we will Verify with ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 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 Neutron imaging. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron scanner[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Industrial_radiography#Non-intrusive_cargo_scanning~~ Neutron imaging: or Merge if any of the sources here are worth keeping. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Changed merge/redir target per comments below. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cargo scanning is just one use for neutron scanning. I've turned up 6 refs for neutron scanning applications in strain measurement, radioactive waste characterization, archaeology, tank measurements, weld evaluations, nuclear fuel fabrication. There are still more uses out there. For this reason, I recommend against redirecting to a cargo scanning section. As for merging, there's now a lot to merge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 more applications I've referenced: medical, lunar dust analysis, concrete research. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those sources secondary? I see a lot of academic publications there, which certainly establish verifiability, but without SIGCOV by secondary sources, we don't have the notability we need for a standalone article on the subject. That is why I suggested a merger to a notable topic. For a section there, we don't need independent notability, just verifiability. If Non-intrusive cargo scanning isn't the best target, I'd be happy to consider others. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted when I removed the PROD tag, numerous Google Scholar results indicate neutron scanners are notable. I recommend checking Google Scholar as a "WP:BEFORE" step before deleting this kind of article - it turns up stuff a normal Google Search does not. Also, I note that the article has refs. I appreciate all the many hours Chidgk1 puts every week into purging unreferenced junk from Wikipedia; this one, however, is a keeper. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Thank you @Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: for fixing and referencing the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: you are free to change your mind, and strike out (not delete!) your initial nomination reasoning here. But once any editor has expressed a view other than "Keep" in an AfD, it cannot be circumvented. Please see WP:WITHDRAWN for details. I also restored your AfD notice on the article, as required. Please leave it there until this AfD is properly closed by an uninvolved editor. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see I did not know that - makes sense Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and no harm done. Owen× ☎ 18:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Merge to Neutron imaging or Industrial radiography. I understand that neutron scanners are used not only for screening the cargo, but also in applied crystallography, and in general it is a part of neutron imaging. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So would it make sense to merge this article into Neutron imaging? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCH Phase Display[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD:G12. The text seems to have been lifted off a 2007 textbook. Owen× ☎ 15:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for copyright violation. The textbook was published in 2005, the passage was added here in 2007, so it's clearly a copyright violation rather than citogenesis. DFlhb (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per WP:G12. Clearly a copyright violation, while it may be possible to have something here on this subject it'll have to come from a WP:TNT. User:Let'srun 22:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fischel[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC in any way. There have been a small number of reviews of his work, yes, but the individual himself doesn't seem to be particularly notable, significantly covered, or have made a great impact in his discipline of Holocaust studies.

This was originally proposed for deletion but an editor removed that tag under WP:AUTHOR, but I don't see how Fischel would pass there either - WP:AUTHOR is for authors who have been influential or made an impact in some way, but he hasn't made an impact as an author either as far as I can tell. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree. I am not an expert on holocaust studies, but it seems to me that this is an academic who has published a solid body of work that has been taken seriously by his peers, and which is still available, despite his career taking place mostly before the internet era. To me he's at least a weak keep. It is far too easy to expunge pre-internet academics and authors by expecting post-internet levels of modern-style coverage. Elemimele (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Judaism, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably) I admit I am uncertain at how the notability criteria for academics works, but besides NACADEMIC Fischel appears to pass WP:GNG, see for example a Sunday News feature (p2), plus one from LNP Lancaster (p2), and then lesser coverage from the Intelligencer Journal (2), Sunday News (2 3), LNP Lancaster and the Lancaster New Era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I wrote when I unprodded this in early 2022 and added all of those book reviews, he passes WP:AUTHOR. Each one of them is also in-depth coverage of Fischel's work, providing multiple reliable independent sources that also pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:AUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An academic who is author or editor of a number of book on the holocaust is likely to be notable. I am strengthened in this by his being head of department in a university. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources mentioned above. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisifies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviews show notability. For verifiable facts we also have his Contemporary Authors entry[20] and this[21] newspaper article.Jahaza (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent, significant coverage. The only WP:SIGCOV source (#2) is from a Lubbock based outlet, which is WP:LOCAL. Per WP:NOPAGE, this can be covered at the articles for the respective teams. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arkansas, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with sources such as It’s about time: Texas Tech-Arkansas rivalry a casualty of this era, Rivalry’s nostalgia palpable ~~and Game Recognizes Game: The Saga of Texas vs Arkansas Through the Decades~~. Please note that WP:LOCAL links to an essay (i.e. neither an official policy or guideline) called Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Alvaldi (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the last source, my bad. Alvaldi (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per unsigned comments from User:Alvaldi. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the last source is about the Arkansas-Texas football rivalry. Let'srun (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources above. BUT I have to stress that WP:LOCAL should be hesitantly used for rivalry articles because of independence. These two teams are lucky to have sources outside the cities that they are based in. However, other teams should have more outside the realm of their city feud. If anything, it shows bias about a team that may not actually have a rivalry, but one city/area certainly thinks so. I am not saying don't use them to support GNG, but don't use them as the only sources. Conyo14 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. As Alvaldi notes, WP:LOCAL is neither an official policy or guideline ... and on its face WP:LOCAL purports to cover places of local interest. See also WP:ITSLOCAL ("it's only notable locally", e.g. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville", is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). The one exception (not applicable here) is the WP:AUD limitation in WP:NCORP. A proposal in 2019 to extend WP:AUD more broadly to Wikipedia articles was rejected by the community. See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Local sources, again. Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by Alvaldi (excluding the last one [now struck] that only mentions a rivalry between Arkansas and Texas Tech in passing and mainly focuses on Arkansas-Texas) describe a significant rivalry from the teams' days in the Southwestern Conference. While the rivarry has cooled considerably in the past few decades, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 16:02, 14 December 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 United States-Country relations articles. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Antananarivo[edit]

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

These articles say nothing about their purported topic — the embassies of the United States in various African capitals — and as such should be deleted, per ample recent precedent. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN RAJU Not sure why this is deletion sorted for all these other countries? LibStar (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake I didn't see the other nominations. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all unnecessary content forks of bilateral relations. Created in a spree of new embassy articles with little actual third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all to respective United States–X articles. I don't get why you would make an article about an embassy but then write little to nothing about the embassy and instead write about the history of their diplomacy. There's already an article for that, as well as for the list of ambassadors. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to their respective "Country–United States relations" article. While I must acknowledge that the rationale provided for the AfD is both insufficient and inappropriate, I am open to the idea of merging and redirecting it to the article specific to their country relations. There is more depth to these articles, and they typically follow a consistent format, much like a novel article would discuss aspects such as reception, characters, and critical reviews. I have also observed previous AfDs of a similar nature, which I deemed to be inappropriate. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to their respective United States – (That Country) articles. There's no need to write about a country's embassy if there is little to no information about it. The country relations article is good enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:50, 21 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Eyes[edit]

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

Non-notable book. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Reviewed in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, The LA Times (via TWL) and Booklist (via TWL/Proquest) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the book reviews given above, which could be used to beef up the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources and lack of WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs work but it meets notability standards per the sources given above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TheBritinator (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah H. Platt[edit]

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

Non-notable, poorly sourced pioneer from Tampa Florida with no information other than being dedicated to in a Congregational Church. Not to mention the article is orphaned, so there's no reason for this to exist. TheBritinator (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TheBritinator (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Was a WP:BEFORE search conducted? Judging by the nomination statement, it does not seem like it. Please see WP:NEXIST for why a before search is important. Also, being an orphan or very short are not valid reasons for deletion, as WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for a start it wasn't actually orphaned: he is mentioned in the History of Tampa, Florida article. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added several sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 21:59, 13 December 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. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerod Morris[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained coverage. Some coverage exists for a controversy involving Raúl Ibañez but that is WP:BIO1E at best. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward Delete, but does two pages of this book equal "sustained coverage"? (p. 66-67). -- Jaireeodell (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe that blog is more notable but not sure. Azuredivay (talk) 18:40, 14 December 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 acquisitions by Oracle and extended confirmed-protected. Daniel (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTrial[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. articles about what staff members have done independently are not coverage about this business. Like the last spam that was deleted the same year this was recreated by a new SPA this is just spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: borderline G11. Owen× ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article about a company, recreated by a WP:SPA 4 months after the previous AfD deletion decision. The several 2011 postings - probably primary - seem insufficient to demonstrate that notability was attained. The firm's 2012 takeover is mentioned at List of acquisitions by Oracle so a redirect could be an WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm okay with a Redirect per AllyD, ideally accompanied with a page protect set to extended-confirmed. I doubt this SPA will give up. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sandler (costume wearer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. I doubt that anyone would even come to here if it was for him sharing the name of a very famous actor. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there do appear to be fairly extensive sources discussing this person which seem to go beyond routine news. JMWt (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue for delete. Although the sources are good newspapers with international weight, I feel they might be writing in local-newspaper mode about this, writing about an antisocial nuisance in their own city. I.e. it's local news covered by a newspaper that usually covers wider stuff. Basically the guy is an unpleasant minor criminal just like many, many other unpleasant minor criminals, and I'm not sure we owe him the advertising space for his unpleasant views. There is no real encyclopaedic reason why anyone would be interested in him. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, California, New York, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. JM (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. After checking to see if this might be some sort of hoax, I found that it was actually more than suitable as a general interest kind of article, quite similar to the one about Milverine, who himself is more of a local attraction only. And of course there is Category:American street performers, wherein we find such things as The Great Morgani. StonyBrook _babble 10:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little work on the article, but this subject is without a doubt notable and meets WP:GNG. Mutiple lengthy articles in top level American newspapers over a long period of time. The nomination can only be seen to be squeamish about the content, but these humans about which much of Wikipedia's content is dedicated, they never cease to surprise in the things they do.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Reliable sourcing over a long period of time. Just because it's unpleasant doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed if there's the sources to support it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with User:Elemimele that the coverage is basically local news in press that is known for it's non-local coverage. There is no hint of notability in any of this subject's activities or achievements. BD2412 T 00:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a lean towards keep at the moment, but the delete votes have valid arguments and this discussion could benefit from a bit of extra time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sadly, coverage about this criminal is both significant and lasting, from several reliable sources, more than meeting our standard for notability. "Local news"? We have both the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times covering this. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The NY Times covered it and it's a long story. The SF newspapers are also fine, rest are trivial but in RS. We have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Boswell Group[edit]

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

Apparent lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Eastern Daily Press is the subject's main source and although I'm not disputing its reliability for pages about East Anglia but this Eastern Daily Press article says "Alan Boswell Group has purchased the building in Rouen Road from media group Archant. Archant, which publishes the Eastern Daily Press and the Norwich Evening News, will remain in the building leasing one floor." so the subject and the source are connected. Most of EDP's coverage consists of routine press announcements that mainly consist of direct quotes from the subject but offer little in the way of synthesis, analysis and criticism leading to what I feel is a lack of significant coverage of this subject online. Other sources like this one are trade publications that ostensibly reprint press releases, same goes for Cambridgeshire live and I find it hard to believe that the subject's local Chamber of Commerce is independent of the subject.BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. CptViraj (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a delete because the Boswell group, while a substantial company, is ultimately a routine financial company like many others. It attracts attention in the local press when it acquires other smaller companies, and it also has a charitable wing who've funded a lot of local good causes, thereby also getting some quotes in papers. But, and this is an enormous but, it is completely wrong and misguided to treat the Eastern Daily Press and the group as related. One may be, legally-speaking, the other's landlord, but that's a very long way from the Eastern Daily Press's editor being a puppet of the Boswell's, or that the EDP has lost its editorial independence. The fundamental problem for the article is that no one else outside a very localised/specialised press is actually writing about Boswell's, and everything I can find looks like a press-release anyway. Elemimele (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jackson Myles[edit]

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

UPE creation for individual of questionable notability. WP:NOT and TOU violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN —siro χ o 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR pieces, this Forbes Contributor piece [22] and the Blomberg interview used in the article, none of which are RS, show this isn't notable. I can't find non-PR sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 13 December 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. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox[edit]

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

UPE creation for individual of questionable notability. WP:NOT and TOU violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Women. CptViraj (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This does seems to be more of a LinkedIn profile of a successful person in business than someone who meets WP:GNG, so deletion seems to be in order unless significant coverage of her directly is found.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of Forbes contributor pieces written by this person in Gnews, no sources about this person. What's used now isn't good enough to keep the article. Delete for lack of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has written a few books, but I can't find reviews for any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have two references, out of interest this woman is notable. There's notability associated with.[[23]], [[24]] and [[25]] only are enough to establish notability. Thus generally pass GNG 102.91.71.127 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the first is an independent/reliable source. The other two quote the subject but don't give much information about her. Looks marginal with what's currently on the table. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First is not independent coverage so no good for GNG. Others are just comments from her, not coverage about her so also not good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NIO. Sources provided here are insufficient per above. Admittedly, it was difficult to search for coverage due to the large amount of articles she wrote. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wannabe (song)[edit]

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

Not notable.

pro forma rationale
This song is not a notable subject, which refers to Wikipedia's concept of "notability" as a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. According to Wikipedia's deletion policy, an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline may be deleted (see WP:DELREASON#8). It is not notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and multiple such sources are generally expected (see WP:GNG; my WP:BEFORE did not reveal anything), it has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, it has not won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy etc., and it has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups (see WP:NSONG). Editing or incubating can not compensate for the present lack of notability, and there is no indication that this could eventually prove to be a notable topic. Merging is inappropriate because no article would benefit from the addition of any of this content, which is not adequately sourced, using reliable sources, and redirection is also inappropriate because there is no suitable target to redirect to, since Zedned as a subject of encyclopedic coverage also fails notability criteria, and that article's AfD is progressing towards a consenus to delete.

pro forma rationale

This song is not a notable subject, which refers to Wikipedia's concept of "notability" as a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. According to Wikipedia's deletion policy, an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline may be deleted (see WP:DELREASON#8). It is not notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and multiple such sources are generally expected (see WP:GNG; my WP:BEFORE did not reveal anything), it has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, it has not won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy etc., and it has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups (see WP:NSONG). Editing or incubating can not compensate for the present lack of notability, and there is no indication that this could eventually prove to be a notable topic. Merging is inappropriate because no article would benefit from the addition of any of this content, which is not adequately sourced, using reliable sources, and redirection is also inappropriate because there is no suitable target to redirect to, since Zedned as a subject of encyclopedic coverage also fails notability criteria, and that article's AfD is progressing towards a consenus to delete.

Noting that WP:A9 doesn't apply, but it will apply again soon. (edit of 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC): it does apply now) See the past A9-deletion

Blanking-and-redirecting could have been a good idea, but editors may want to consider if all Zedned titles should be salted. Attention should be drawn to the creator of these articles. Zedned was recreated once after being draftified without leaving a redirect, and this has been recreated after the abovementioned speedy deletion. —Alalch E. 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Internet, and England. —Alalch E. 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The musician's article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zedned. My initial assessment is that if he's not notable then neither are his songs. But still, this song has received no reliable media coverage or pro reviews either, and is just a self-released track on the usual upload services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and agreed there appears to be an issue with the (likely COI) promotional articles being created by this editor. Not averse to salt or similar. ResonantDis_tortion 18:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: song has no reliable coverage and the entire article remains unsourced; I'm fine with salting if it's necessary. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unsourced article that doesn't have any reliable sources or reviews. The article should also be speedily deleted since the musicians themselves doesn't have an article. Clearly fails WP:NSONG. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gem Tower Defense[edit]

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

The game fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains map pages, WP:PRIMARY sources or blogs. My searches haven't produced something more meaningful. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to exist, but that's about it - doesn't seem notable at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got a brief mention in Europe in Joystick [26] and passing mention in Joker [27]. Still far from the threshold of general notability. Is already mentioned in the Tower defense article, which is as good as it probably gets. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Invalid deletion motivations by a new user. As a consequence, it snowed. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Huff[edit]

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

Suspicous academic, not sourced 25lucky (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not yet looked at this nomination in particular, but the nominator made a few edits last December and then started up on 13th with an apparent sole focus on various types of deletion/draftification. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Management, Technology, Germany, Ireland, England, California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a rather paltry deletion rationale. What does "suspicious" mean? And lacking sources isn't itself a reason for deletion; the more important question is whether sources can be found. Anyway, a quick check of Google Scholar finds 3 publications with over 1,000 citations each, and 22 with over 100; the h-index is somewhere in the upper 20's. That makes passing WP:PROF#C1 at least plausible. JSTOR gives a review of Writing for Scholarly Publication [28], one of the co-authored When Firms Change Direction [29], and three of the co-edited Mapping Strategic Knowledge [30][31][32], so while WP:AUTHOR isn't immediately satisfied there's at least a chance that, if other reviews turn up, it could be met that way. And the high citation counts for the two single-author books [33][34] don't exactly hurt. Being president of the Academy of Management [35] may also qualify for WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are enough reviews of enough books to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, even if one discounts the reviews for edited volumes. Head of the Academy of Management is plausibly a pass of WP:PROF#C6. I think her works are highly-enough cited for #C1. And no valid deletion rationale has been provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several of her papers and books are highly cited and she probably passes NPROF-C1. The reviews show a pass of NAUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:PROF#C6 and WP:AUTHOR passes are at least plausible, and the case for passing WP:PROF#C1 is good. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and that the nomination has been discredited. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. It took the nominator one minute to open this random AfD. The rationale is largely incorrect. Closing it before it wastes scarce community resources. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air France KLM Martinair Cargo[edit]

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

No notability, no reliable sources. Delete. Looks like promotion and advertisement 25lucky (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, France, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This AfD was started 1 minute after nominator's previous AfD and without a valid rationale. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Yar Gharany[edit]

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

Hoax, not notable person; promotion 25lucky (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Afghanistan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being a hoax and promotion at the same time sounds like nonsense. Geschichte (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a source cited from Khaama Press, the largest news agency in the country. Why do you think it's a hoax? Wikishovel (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think other editors have done enough work on it that it's not eligible for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close‎. Per User:Liz: Agmaz & Luk Maz (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Schandona) in violation of ban or block) (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agmaz & Luk Maz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, not independent coverage and not notable company by its own 25lucky (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zenarmor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP; no reliable sources and independent deep coverage; clear promotion 25lucky (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does seem promotional and fail WP:NCORP. Haven't found secondary coverage. DFlhb (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hibox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibox, an existing draft was amended and moved to mainspace. The sources still look like the same kind of press releases masquerading as business reporting ("Throughout the day, the students, facing financial challenges, radiated happiness as they received mystery boxes containing a wealth of educational resources"), there still is apparently not a single news source even mentioning the founder Le Van Hai, which one would expect from a neutral source about the company.

It still has the same kind of sources which contradict the basic facts in the article as well, e.g. the first source[36] claims it isn't an Indian company but a London-based one which was active elsewhere before it started in India.

All in all, very fishy (articlewise and businesswise), much hype and not a lot of substance, almost as if it is some pyramid scheme or scam. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I request to some Indian author to check the article as it's in Hindi. Secondly, Times of India is the biggest publication in India and you are saying what they have written is fake? Seriously!! All the information provided above is all legit. Sparsh1220 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What they publish is often not something they have actually written, but content delivered and paid for by the covered subject. Fram (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article, which says they completed 500k installs on google play store and I verified on the playstore, they actually hit 500k, that's legit. Find the link here https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hibox.in

Also for the education article, I saw the video on youtube, where they have given the gifts to 250 + students, so that's also true.

So what information is fake?

I would request you to verify the information yourself and question accordingly. Sparsh1220 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that anything in the TOI articles is "fake", I said that it is just press releases, info from (and probably paid for by) the company, not independent journalism. The really dubious info is from the india.com source. I also wonder how "legit" it is to get 500K downloads and not a single review on the Google Play Store, but there may be a good explanation. Fram (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I guess you are not aware of this point that you need to have an android phone to check the play store reviews after the new update pushed from google where reviews are not available if the app is viewed from PC or IOS device. Also there are 1000+ reviews on the play store with 4.3 rating. I feel so you are really very confident without even actually verifying the information Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fram, I have read it thoroughly it cleared stated the company is from Vietnam, who founder/director is Le Van Hai, Confirmed from Vietnam's company verification website. And also the company's headquater is in London, England. I don't find anything fishy in the article read it again. or if the article says something I'll remove that article. I have written the information on what I found on the web. Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the article has been changed from what was there when I nominated it for deletion. And yes, I find it thoroughly fishy that all sources are from India, that ndia.com[37] claims "HIBOX is a global e-commerce mystery box company, headquartered in London. The Vietnam branch was established in the second quarter of 2023", but there are no sources to be found from anywhere but India. I don't believe for one second that an article which with a straight face claims that the start of some mystery shopping box application "has opened up opportunities not only for business but also for regional partnerships in India. With the rapid growth in the e-commerce industry, the entry of HIBOX opens up possibilities for collaboration between India and neighboring countries, which will boost regional economic integration. " or that "“HIBOX” is known for its unique mystery box shopping mode. Its entry into the Indian market symbolizes India's integration into the global supply chain." is an actual, journalistic article and not an extremely overhyped press release. And sure enough, the text is nearly identical to their "official" press release[38].

Not one source seems to be actually independent of the company, which is a basic requirement to establish notability. Regurgitated press releases only show that the company spends money on advertising, nothing else. Fram (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article source from abplive which you mentioned above is not even added as a reference here in this article, The information I have added in the article is what I have understood from the press release which are all organic. There is a proper author as well who verified the information and then published the same on India.com article. There are multiple six main articles I have attached in the references. India.com ( All the information is publicly available on google as well ). cnbctv18 ( All the information is properly verified ). Times of India 500k article. ( there is nothing in the article apart from that the app hit 500k ). Times of India education article ( All the information there is verified and legit, the ngo and school where they did the program is all legit, 250 + students got the educational gifts in mystery boxes ). Another TOI article where mystery box is added ( They have told about mystery box and added only that hibox is one of the platforms in India ) And the last is Economic times article ( It said the same that Hibox is one of the platforms in India). There are multiple paid ones from the company, but none of them are here. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also What do you want to say about this company right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyOperator Go through their article once and let me know, All the articles are explaining about how their system works. How are their page available on wikipedia? Do author's on wikipedia get paid from brands to publish article here?

I added such a basic information, Their is not a single exaggeration on the whole wikipedia article, but to you it seems all fishy. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And do let me know, if we can make some changes and we can keep the article or you want to be biased and delete it. Reply to this accordingly, I'll remove it from the mainspace and will bring it back. When accordingly this brand has tons of "Neutral articles" according to you Fram!!!. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added international references fram check now Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added three "EIN PressWire" sources, i.e. three press releases by Hibox. As it says right at the top of these "NEWS PROVIDED BY HIBOX COMPANY LIMITED". Value for this discussion: zero. And no, I didn't say that the abplive link is in the article, I said that the India.com article is taken nearly literally from the press release at apblive. I am not interested in discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have tons of shitty articles (or good articles on non notable subjects), none of them have any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Fram (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that it’s fake, but none of the sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV—The CNBC one is one sentence sourced entirely from Hibox’s own release, nothing near significant; The one from Economic Times does not mention Hibox at all, therefore cant be used in order to establish notablity; and the two articles for Indian news sources cannot be used for SIGCOV as there is a high chance that they were paid for, and this means that they fail the “Independent Source” criterion of SIGCOV. None of the sources are necessarily false, they simply do not indicate that the subject is notable for a Wikipedia article. Delete.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No substantive sources have been added to the article since the last AfD, nor have I found any that provide significant indepth coverage of this company/application. Sources are by and large about the mystery shopping concept. One of the ToI sources (not in the article) reports the donation of a few educational gifts by Hibox to deserving children.[39]. While commendable this can also be viewed as promotional. Why did ToI report this? Does it generally report such donations? None of the sources reach WP:NCORP standards in respect of WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a company seeking credibility and brand awareness; the WP:SIRS critera were put in place to prevent the use of Wikipedia for this. To be clear, I'm not accusing the article creator of intentionally promoting the company or in any way knowingly acting against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Unfortunately, the article has been brought back from the previous AfD draftify closure with little or no improvement in sourcing. Rupples (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Rupples, I also felt that promotional and have removed it. Sparsh1220 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 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. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanno Essén[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. An associate professor with an h-index of 15 (WoS), and a single high-impact paper with 1390 citations coauthored with Richard Bader. The paper is about atoms in molecules theory, Bader's forte. Essén's second most highly cited paper only has 52 citations. His involvement in E-cat cold fusion controversy does not seem very notable either, but could be mentioned on the E-cat page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is probably designated around him being a skeptic in the public debate, rather than an accomplished academic. He was also active in arguing against the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I did search the Swedish Mediearkivet, and didn't come up with the most compelling pieces, although the Mediearkivet isn't complete either. The "controversy" did get lots of coverage, but understandably more focused on Andrea Rossi with Essén as a side figure. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best you could find in the Mediearkivet to satisfy WP:NBASIC? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single well-cited paper and retired associate professorship aren't going to be enough to pass WP:PROF, leaving only his work both debunking and pushing fringe topics, for which we would need WP:GNG notability. The two sources in the article aren't convincing: they both merely discuss Essén's role as an observer in someone else's experiment, and I don't think New Energy Times can be used as a reliable source, especially in a BLP (see RSN). The best other sourcing I could find was a Fox News piece on constant-force roller coaster design, but it barely name-drops Essén rather than having significant coverage of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 December 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 Melchior Ndadaye. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ndadaye Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All I can find on this topic are brief mentions such as this, which note that this is a Burundian national holiday to commemorate the death of Melchior Ndadaye, something which is already encapsulated by a single sentence on the Ndadaye article. I do not see how this subject is independently notable or that this article a necessary fork owing to the amount of content available. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 13 December 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 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above this doesn't need to be an standalone article. killer bee  08:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into the Melchior Ndadaye entry. I found two book citations and included them in the entry, but they are passing mentions and insufficient to have this holiday clear notability guidelines.

KangarooGymnast (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Melchior Ndadaye: Put a section about the day on the target and redirect this one there. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriko Kvaliashvili[edit]

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 December 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 Moldova women's international footballers. ^Complex/_Rational 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Trofimov[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I support listification. This is probably the way forward for several minor football nations. Geschichte (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Tudor[edit]

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

Subjects fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Just another run-of-the-mill video game employee lacking in notability that fails to assert notability besides being a non-notable musician. As for reliable sources, one source is through a paywall and is to promote a video game he was involved in, which I doubt highly asserts notability. The other is an announcement of his position as a director. The article has been created by COI editor who has since been banned for sock-puppetry, who since continues to ban-evade as an IP user. This has been dePRODded and recreated despite a successful PROD nomination in 2010 but was recreated in 2011; despite this, issues still remains unaddressed since 2017. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - The action above does not formally nominate Stephen Baysted for deletion, as there is no notice at the top of his article. Trying to tie nominations together just because they're both video game guys is unnecessary and awkward. Simply create an entire new AfD for Baysted if you think it's appropriate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this advice, done it since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if anyone has a response to this nomination. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage about Tudor as a subject. That said, he has a public-facing development role and has been interviewed widely in primary sources covering his work as the creative director of the Project Cars series (e.g. [40][41][42][43][44]) and co-penned an article on game design [45]. So he may not quite be a run of the mill video game employee, but it's clear he lacks the sort of coverage that warrants his inclusion as an independent article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:32, 14 December 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!} 08:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milasha Joseph[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The references I find are all from the same time period (within two weeks of each other) and read similar so likely an issue of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only one that isn't is from Keralakaumudi Daily which I am unsure is reliable or not. Seven Summits have been attempted by many so not likely to obtain the significant coverage required for notability until after she completes it. CNMall41 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the argument of WP:NCLIMBER and WP:TOOSOON may not be applicable in Milasha's case. Her journey is not solely about climbing; it's about overcoming adversity and inspiring others. Deletion based on being "too soon" could hinder the representation of achievements by individuals facing unique challenges. Milasha's chronic asthma, an incurable condition, adds a layer of complexity to her mountaineering endeavors. Her story goes beyond climbing mountains; it's about breaking societal constraints and empowering women to pursue their dreams irrespective of health challenges. Benraphy (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:NCLIMBER that warns on Seven Summits BLPs (i.e. people who are non-notable climbers using seven summits projects to generate publicity); wasn't aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA but makes sense as there are several weak Indian climbing BLPs that have zero climbing notability but who somehow got coverage in Indian news media (e.g. Anil Vasave). Aszx5000 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milasha Joseph's pursuit of the Seven Volcanic Summits is a unique and challenging endeavor. While it's acknowledged that many attempt the Seven Summits, Milasha's journey is distinctive due to her chronic asthma. Her determination to overcome physical challenges and empower women makes her a notable figure. WP:GNG The concern about references being from a similar time period may be a result of the prominence of Milasha's achievements within a specific timeframe. The uniqueness of her story might have garnered more attention during certain periods, and this does not diminish its significance. Reliability of News While questioning the reliability of Keralakaumudi Daily, it's crucial to note that regional newspapers can provide valuable insights into the achievements of local individuals. Benraphy (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCLIMBER, the Seven Summits is not only not notable in climbing but is actively used to manufacture notability on Wikipedia, particularly via WP:NEWSORGINDIA to generate "inspiring stories". The "Seven Volcanic Summits" is a much easier feat than even the non-notable Seven Summits as it doesn't include Everest. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. And as user Aszx5000 said, this article is most probably used to manufacture notability on Wikipedia. killer bee  09:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass SUSTAINED and the promotional tone of the current coverage and SPA article creator suggest some degree of publicity-seeking going on.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to delete, but encouragement of the consensus here is to re-scope and improve the article via editorial processes. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One-off vehicle[edit]

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

Besides the poor quality of this article, this article is also completely arbitrary and not encyclopaedic. It makes dubious claims as many of those in the article are not one-offs at all.

Sources are from it as dictionary term and about the cars itself, not the subject.

It is not unusual for these to be produced as one-offs. A notes to add to my rationale to delete, this is because of the questionable nature of this article.

Speed record vehicles are one-offs too and so are race cars before the 1990s
Experimental aircrafts are one-offs also. Ships are too as well as ocean liners and warships.
Concept cars are one-offs too.
Can cars that have been heavily modified from its mass produced version, such as feature cars in magazines such as Max Power, be considered as one-offs too?
It was not unusual for luxury cars built prior to the war to be built as one-offs. Many cars, pre-Ford Model T, were one-offs.
Does making a sole road version of race cars make it a one-off? (Porsche 911 GT1) Do sole racing version of production cars make it a one-off? (numerous)
Do making extensive modifications to a production car make it a one-off? (Some Ferrari Special Projects cars)
Do movie cars make them a one-offs too? (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang movie car)
Does making slight alterations make it a one-offs? (Britten V1000)
Making more than one does not make it a one-off (Moto Guzzi V8)

Question is, should we include land speed record vehicles, ‘home-built’ racing cars, soap-box derby cars, modified cars, experimental aircrafts, luxury yachts, ocean liners, concept cars into this list? If we allow a list like this, then we’ll end up with an over-cluttered list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like the nom has an issue with the article scope which could be better discussed on the talkpage. The problem of the list becoming cluttered could be addressed by consensus on scoping; for example by agreeing to only include models produced by recognised manufacturers. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is, are they any different to custom cars, concept cars and custom cars for rich people? I don't see any. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with user "JMWt".. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. Mcapdevila (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer to my criticism of that article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete If nothing else, I see no good reason to lump together different types of vehicles. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not be opposed to a dynamic list of one-off cars that have articles with a brief explanation of what "one-off" refers to, however as was explained, it's a very vague term that could mean anything from concept cars to movie cars to cars that were built by manufacturers with the intention of being sold, and a lot of the categories overlap. Making one for "vehicles" on the other hand means you would have to include things like space shuttles and cruise ships which are vehicles that are obviously not mass-produced. Regardless, this article needs to be WP:TNT'd. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vehicle únic or vehicolo único vs. ONE-OFF.. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. I am adding the translation of the comments of the original autor in catalan wiki, based in the idea of the italian article: "vehicolo único", with vehicles wich are "unique" in its dessign, but "sometimes" with more than ONE-OFF fabricated.

This article allows to centralize many cases that do not have an article but they deserve one. Whether they have an article on other wikis or they don't have it. It is not easy to find some of these "unique items" that can make all together an interesting article.--Mcapdevila (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcapdevila Have you forgot to declare that you are the article creator? In case you don't know, they do have their own articles. With your argument, are we going to document every one of them starting with the Benz Patentwagen? I can point this out, one-offs have existed since the dawn of the automobile. I cannot see your reasoning being a valid argument. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to "declare" something obvious and evident to editors with a couple of weeks editing? Mcapdevila (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're the one who created that article and voting keep rings bells. Still, any different to coachbuilder? SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators have as much of a right to participate in AFDs as any other editor and doesn't it seem natural that most would vote to keep articles they created? They don't need to post a disclaimer and SpacedFarmer, you're in no position to make demands of other editors, especially ones that started editing in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs a better scoping statement in the lede, a lot of copy-edit work and perhaps a better title, but WP:DINC. The subject is encyclopaedic and RS exist. I see no policy-based reasons for deletion. I would wonder if the article might be better restructured into a stand-alone list with a strong intro, but (again), that's cleanup and not a reason for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of this proposal is that the article of coachbuilder exists (as they were called then) and has that same principle. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
coachbuilder coexists in parallel with custom car, or customized car wich are similar..

One off, maybe we shall rename it to "unique vehicle".. deals with vehicles in general.. not only cars Mcapdevila (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest '''one-off production car''' for 1) it should be about production cars with the pure intention of being produced as one, not 2 or more 2) cars always take the limelight 3) motorcycles are typically customised by a customiser because they are cheaper to do so - 2 of those of your entries are not one-offs and how do you know the OSSA was a one-off? Because it is a sole-surviving model, it doesn't mean it is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. The article requires improvements, but has an encyclopedic scope. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. I've done a little of copy-edit, to start with.. obviously more work is still needed.. Mcapdevila (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of all Formula One Grands Prix in order[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and technically untenable on the longer term. Also an unnecessary content fork of the season articles. T v x1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. T v x1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essentially a content fork with no added independent value; there is nothing gained from this page compared to the season articles, which additionally include non-championship races. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (updated primary recommendation based on concerns that merge target may grow too large) or Merge to List of Formula One Grands Prix. While this list meets the purpose criterion of WP:NLIST as an informational and navigational list and is also an acceptable WP:DIFFORK, I think a merge by WP:NOPAGE to page containing related lists probably makes sense. —siro χ o 18:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose criterion is not a trump card to a list. Notability (or in this case lack thereof) cannot just be ignored. Also this is way too large (and increasing endlessly) to be actually of navigational and informational use. This is list also does not add any new information whatsoever to what already is present in other articles. As for merging with the other list, that would only make it worse size-wise and would go against a consensus achieved there no to include such lists there.T v x1 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NLIST and being a WP:CFORK. Listing GP this way has no value, indepedent of the season articles.06:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)
I'm leaning weak keep. I agree with Siroxo that this meets both WP:NLIST and is a totally acceptable WP:DIFFORK. The page is, however, a bit unwieldy. I'm not sure what content could be merged without ballooning the List of Formula One Grands Prix out of control.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you actually substantiate that it meets WP:LISTN then? Notability doesn't exist because you say so. You need to prove it with acceptable sources.Tvx1 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples:
Smith, Roger (2019). Formula 1 All The Races: The First 1000. Poundbury, England: Veloce Publishing. ISBN 978-1-787115-66-8.

The Formula One Record Book (2023): Grand Prix Results, Team & Driver Stats, All-Time Records

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FORMULA ONE by Bruce Jones
Additionally to these, in a more general sense, the guidelines call for the subjects to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Few things are discussed more in motorsports than the set of all time results of Formula One Grands Prix. Everything is always discussed in the context of the results dating back to 1950, such as milestone in this list always specifically mentioned in the news: [46][47][48] Cerebral726 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three weblinks you provided don't "[discuss all F1 races] as a group or set". They talk about one event in isolation just because it happens to represent a milestone in the sport's history (500th, 900th and 1100th races). That is not the same thing. SSSB (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What’s your opinion on the 3 other sources I provided? Cerebral726 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That it is very hard to gauge the relevance of those books because I don't know a) the accuracy of the claim of "complete encyclopedia" or b) the depth of detail or c) (linked to b and a) if these books discuss them as a set or discuss them independently but all of them. What I would say is that these are three WP:FANCRUFT books. We shouldn't be keeping a list for WP:FANCRUFT reasons. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say those books fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and don’t establish notability. Of course the basic results will be covered somewhere.T v x1 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on its usefulness as a navigation tool meeting WP:CLN/AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument per WP:USEFUL. This has nothing to do with policies or guidelines, but is pure personal opinion. The season articles are much more “useful” for this purpose.T v x1 21:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Timothy was fairly clear that they are not saying the article is merely useful without any justification, as a personal opinion. They cite WP:CNL and WP:AOAL as reasons why they are useful as a navigation tool and thus encyclopedic, which is an argument that further builds upon arguments already presented above. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these trump WP:LISTN, which isn’t satisfied here.T v x1 19:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I do not see how this fancruft article is going to be any use to anybody but the most obsessed F1 stans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have something deleted from Wikipedia these days. All the keep arguments have been refuted. I honestly don't see why this keeps being relisted then. Is it really that much to ask to just properly weigh the arguments instead of just counting the numbers? Arguments are not valid just because they are made. Consensus is not unanimity. Meanwhile, this article keeps ballooning in size and there is nothing at all here that is not already conveyed to our readers in a much more valuable way anywhere else on Wikipedia. This is nothing but unnecessary duplication for the sake of it.T v x1 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People take in information in different ways, there are a lot of ways of thinking and learning. Presenting the same information in multiple ways is generally good for accessibility. Others may find more value in something like this than you do. —siro χ o 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it just don’t buy that for this information. Your just bringing this up as an excuse to justify keeping this for the sake of it. There’s no way an article this large (and continualltly enlarging) is of true practical usage. This isn’t even a different way of presenting this information. It’s just copying it to a different place for the sake of it. T v x1 11:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider striking your accusation. It's unfounded, unnecessary, and untrue. —siro χ o 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpacedFarmer. I don't disagree with the fact that this list is a fancruft and should be removed. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:52, 19 December 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Andrews & Sons[edit]

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

Sadly, this article on a long-lived company is only referenced by a single source (two sources appear in the list of references, however, they're syndicated articles). A WP:BEFORE on Google News and Google Books doesn't find anything to redeem it. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Struggling to find anything and can't immediately see an alternative to deletion. Could be local sources on such a longstanding business. Was hopeful that the documents on the company's website[49] might be of help but one of the cuttings is an advertiser's announcement; the other headed "Comprehensive service from 300 employees" I'm unable to decipher and we'd need to find the original newspaper source to confirm whether or not it's an advertising feature. Rupples (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar (2024 film)[edit]

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

WP:NFF: hasn't yet commenced principal photography. Sources cited say that filming was proposed to begin in July 2022, but all that's been announced so far is plans. Wikishovel (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Wikishovel (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quick google search results in no info. Not notable enough. Probably made for advertisement. killer bee  08:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per mention by K6bee9(Talk) – Non-notable. Kkb091 (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone connected with the film obviously has their eye on this article, as on the day of proposed deletion, press releases were hurried out claiming that casting had begun, and that principal photography had begun, which would be quite a feat of engineering. Wikishovel (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This film is pretty viral in Bangladesh (type রাজকুমার শাকিব খান into google and translate, maybe even use a dhaka proxy server), but I think it should be placed in the Bangla wiki (bn.Wikipedia) Iamawesomedog (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all arguments above. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of behavior is it? I have improved the whole article, why this article was deleted without any communication with me, I want to know? And those of you who are scholars here, how did you know from outside the country that filming has not started? নবাব (talk) 12:01, 21 December 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. Nomination withdrawn.[50] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Swords (suit)[edit]

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Swords (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of swords. Swords (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of swords is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A) AFD really isn't "articles for discussion" and shouldn't be used for a merge proposal. B) per Uncle G they do appear different. C) I don't see a good reason why these 4 weren't done as a bundle--I find it unlikely that the arguments at each will be different. Would you mind closing these four and giving us one bundled proposal (or take it to the talk pages). Hobit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Swords (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas suit of swords is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming needs sorting out because the suit is called "swords" by both card players and occultists. So we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). In the other 3 cases, there are different names that can be used to distinguish them. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 17:01, 14 December 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. Nomination withdrawn.[51] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Batons (suit)[edit]

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Batons (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of wands. Batons (suit)/Suit of batons is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of wands is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Batons (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of wands is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the names need sorting out and perhaps they could be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:58, 14 December 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. Nomination withdrawn.[52] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Coins (suit)[edit]

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Coins (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of coins. Coins (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of coins is (it says) about Tarot cards and has an alternative name of Suit of pentacles. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern playing cards, they started producing their own packs over 200 years ago for cartomancy. So Coins (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas Suit of coins is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, cups and goblets, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming should be changed and would suggest renaming Suit of coins to Pentacles (suit); equally we expand the disambiguator by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perdita Hyde-Sinclair[edit]

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

Only three sources, two of which comes from the same source. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE except a couple of passing mentions. May I suggest a redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) as an WP:ATD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:HEY, as this article has been greatly improved since the nomination, and likely will be improved even more. The character is clearly notable and has SIGCOV and the 27+ sources show that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been improved since the nomination. I disagree that there was not enough sources elsewhere online as I could find numerous. It looks like they are being added to the article. No need to redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) since the article passes GNG and has SIGCOV in offline print sources.Rain the 1 18:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to article post-nomination. – Meena • 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've had a go at improving the article and believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There are a number of sources out there for the character, but I will concede that it does take someone with knowledge of the subject to find them all. I do wish that a discussion had taken place on a relevant talk page, before coming straight to WP:AfD though. Also, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with refs coming from the same source? - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:50, 19 December 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. Nomination withdrawn[53]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Cups (suit)[edit]

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving Suit of goblets back to Suit of cups, where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of Suit of cups. The latter is a disambiguation between Cups (suit) and Suit of goblets. And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either. Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once. Feel free to close 'em. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeja Bektaš[edit]

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

The subject, a Bosnian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this transactional announcement. Everything else that came up was passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 December 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 Kosovo women's international footballers. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjeza Rexhepi[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No sigcov on Google, no hits on GNews. Fails WP:NBIO/WP:NSPORT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:09, 20 December 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 Kosovo women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbardha Misini[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this and this. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aboureihan High School[edit]

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

Non-Notable school, no citations, WP:BEFORE found no reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Iran. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 13 December 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. There is clear consensus that the article content should not be deleted, redirected, merged etc. Some editors believe that the article content should be reorganized, but no suggestion came close to achieving consensus so it is a matter for talkpage discussion rather than AFD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Central Asia[edit]

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

The existence of this article is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as such in WP:RS. All the information in the article is summarized in either Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai or Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire; this should probably either be deleted or redirected to Mongol invasions and conquests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT per discussion with 3family6 below, I think Disambiguate also just about works. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, this seems like a redundant, synthesized topic. Delete per nom.~~ ~~Withdrawn for now while I talk to the editor.~~ The article has expanded and its purpose clarified since I originally voted, now fully for keeping. Remsense留 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. An interesting case, though, as it is literally the opposite of a WP:POVFORK. Instead of splitting one subject, it takes two valid topics and attempts to artificially combine them into one. Maybe a POVSPOON? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~userfy~~ Disambiguate as there is more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns, although they were the largest. The invasion of Cumania, for example. I'm actually in the process of creating some of that content. There is a need for an overarching treatment of how the specific campaigns all relate to each other. More directly to the issue, though, is that a quick search of "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" brings up multiple sources about the topic, not all of them about only the invasion of Khwarezmia. There's even at least two with that exact title. Here's some of the results: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've greatly expanded the content to include other operations and campaigns in Central Asia. Should address the SYNTH issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your expansions to the article and comments above indicate that you believe a substantial portion of the "invasion of Central Asia" began before the commencement Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia in 1218—this is not supported by any of the sources you have provided:

Islam 2016 states "a punitive action against the Kara-Khitai was the prelude to the all-out Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 1218–1219". The campaigns such as the invasion of Cumania are not mentioned in the article entitled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia", which is completely devoted to the invasion of Khwarazmia. It is clear that Islam's conception of the "Invasion of Central Asia" is just our article Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire under a different name, and completely unrelated to your conception of there being "more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns".
Abasov 2008 is an entry from an encylopedia entitled "Historical Atlas Of Central Asia"—as such, many entries include the words "Central Asia" in their titles, but are described on WP under different names. See for instance the entry "The Arab Conquest of Central Asia" (on WP Muslim conquest of Transoxiana) or "Timur and the Timurid Empire in Central Asia (on WP Timur & Timurid Empire). Aside from that, it must be noted that Abasov, like Islam, states outright "In 1219, Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia"—again, he does not mention Cumania, or any other campaigns, clearly showing that he is just referring to the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire.
The academics.hamilton.edu source similarly states "The Mongols began their invasion of Central Asia in 1218... on a mission of vengeance against the ruler of Khwarezm"
I am confused by your citations above to Biran 2009 and a Boundless World History textbook, as neither use the phrase "Invasion of Central Asia". Nevertheless, neither discusses events before 1216.

So to summarize, the sources explicitly titled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia" only discuss the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, while none of the five sources you have provided support the inclusion of sections on the "Destruction of the Merkit–Naiman alliance", the "Submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks", or the "Destruction of the Merkit–Kipchak alliance". As it stands, the article thus contains quite a bit more WP:SYNTH than before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what part of the world do those sections I added deal with? Geographic Central Asia. It is not SYNTH to mention campaigns that happened in Central Asia as part of a series of campaigns in Central Asia, especially when the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia. The five sources above that I mentioned I listed before I created this new content. I did not cite them to support these additions. I added these additions because there are additional battles that happened in Central Asia, when the argument is that there wasn't anything else happening in Central Asia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that include what I've added as part of Mongol activity in Central Asia: pages 8-10, [59], [60]--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia That is not the argument: as written in the deletion nomination above, the article is not in itself notable—sources do not discuss it as an entity, and to combine multiple sections on individually notable campaigns that are not explicitly connected by reliable sources is WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You contended that the new content I added did not belong in this article. That's what I mean about arguing that nothing else occurred in Central Asia. They are explicitly connected, in the source material. One rolled into the next. The early mopping up of Merkit and Naiman opposition directly flowed into the conquest of Qara Khitai because Kuchlug seized the Qara Khitan throne. And then the Mongols were rubbing up against Khwarazm, which led to that conquest. This is reflected in many of the sources. And this source by one of the historians that I cite in the new content that I added explicitly says the preliminary expansion started in 1209.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, events flowing into each other is generally how time works. I don't think this getting anywhere productive, so I'll disengage and let the closer evaluate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If sources discuss all this happening, it isn't original synthesis. There's sources that include both the conquest of Qara Khitai and Khwarazm in descriptions of the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. And now I've provided sources showing that the other actions in geographic Central Asia are described as occurring in that part of the world, and now I've shown that there's at least one source connecting all of these other actions to the big campaign that was the conquest of Khwarazm. While the article still needs work, the concerns for why it is it is nominated for deletion are addressed. Editors are supposed to do their due diligence first and consult sources before nominating for deletion. I can see why the source material would be difficult to work through, but now it's provided, so the notability concerns don't hold water. And whatever remaining SYNTH concerns there might have been, the Timothy May article I linked to above clears those up. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. I'll be happy to clean up this article once I've finished the current project I'm working on. It just so happens through coincidence that my creation of articles related to the Mongol conquest of Siberia happened to also have a lot of pertinence to, and overlap with, the early Central Asian endeavors, so I had material relatively at the ready.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, non-leading question, could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense留 01:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is pertinent to having any over-arching articles about large, inter-related campaigns when we have articles about the constituent campaigns and battles of which they are comprised? We could get even larger - for instance, Anne Broadbridge mentions the "Western Campaign", which is basically everything west and southwest of Mongolia as opposed to the campaign against the Chinese states (note: I'm not saying that in this case we should, but that there's precedent in reliable sources to do so). It's useful for readers (which includes myself) to have articles that are broad summaries that show how a series of specific campaigns are related. Secondly, while some of the content I've added could have its own article, specifically the submission of Uyghur and Karluk states, and the Battle of Chem will have its own article, some of the content I don't think will ever merit its own article. It's more notable in how it relates to these other key events than stand-alone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The precise meaning of 'campaign' is key here. It may sound like a pedantic point, but is there any notion that the various central Asian campaigns were viewed at the time as being part of a larger 'campaign' as it were? Or is is simply a historiographical construction? I think an article could be viable either way, but it definitely affects what I think the focus and scale of the article should be. Remsense留 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. The conquest of Qara Khitai seems to be part of the same campaign as the initial operations in 1209 that followed-up Jochi's Siberian campaign, as it essentially is part of the "mopping up" of opposition factions that date back to the rise of Genghis Khan. And there's some historical speculation that the Uyghurs and Karluks submitted because the Mongols weren't in their territory just to pursue the Merkits. The part that's less clear is if Khwarazm was viewed as part of this. And I that depends on if there was always a plan to invade Khwarazm, and that's debated by historians. So it's a historical construction, but possibly reflective of how the Mongols saw it. After Khwarazm, it seems a lot clearer that the Mongols now saw the entire West as a possession of the imperial family and the respective campaigns were all part of securing that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense and AirshipJungleman29, I could see each of the sections I added being turned into an article, if they aren't already, and this article being converted into a reference article such as a dab or list article . I think there's value to having it in full article form, but I can see that as alternate option and I wouldn't be opposed to that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, yes, I see it now, I'm going to reverse my original position now. Thanks for the answers! Remsense留 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any of that discussion solves what seems to be core issue. What need is there for 'an overarching treatment' of the various (apparently very distinct) campaigns? I am not seeing them treated as a unified concept in the sources. What am I missing? Can someone give a short (paragraph or less) explanation of that, please? I am not hard to persuade to keep an article, but I'm just not seeing how this is not WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original synthesis as there are no conclusions reached that aren't in the source material. I challenge editors to show where that is the case. The biggest issue I see is that most references to "Mongol invasion/conquest of Central Asia" refer to Khwarazm or both Qara Khitai and Khwarazm. But, given that 1) these other campaigns/operations also occurred in geographic Central Asia (where else could they be discussed? They aren't Europe or Siberia, although there's overlap. The securing of Xinjiang and surrounding area could be discussed in the invasions China, but if editors are opposing inclusion here, they'd have to oppose inclusion there, as well), and 2) there are academic sources to support both the submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks and the "mopping-up" campaign beginning in 1209. The sections on Qara Khitai and Khwarazm aren't cited, but that's a WP:V issue and there's plenty of sources to support that material that just aren't yet cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I still don't see this either. I don't see how the sentence "Mongol expansion into Central Asia began in 1209" requires an entire article to be created on the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia", especially as the same author says differently elsewhere and two other sources define the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" to be the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. If this article is kept, it has to be moved to something like "List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia", as I did for the article formerly titled Mongol conquest of Siberia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be moved to "Mongol campaigns in Central Asia". AirshipJungleman29, how would you categorize the minor 1209 campaign in Central Asia if it was created as it's own article? I.e., in the infobox, how would "part of the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia be incorrect, especially given that it can be cited to a source?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already created it as its own article: Battle of Irtysh River (13th century). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. You would argue that the follow-up activities that would be included in the aftermath section of that article and my forthcoming Battle of Chem River article would be sufficient?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and aftermath sections are all that would be required 3family6. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am not sure that even a merge to that subject is worthwhile. I am still firmly in the 'Delete' camp unless someone can explain why this is an encyclopaedic subject in itself and not a synthesis that artificially combines separate campaigns in a way that the scholarship does not support. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship does support it. There's debate as to whether or not Khwarazm was always the end goal after Qara Khitai, and whether it was a goal or not, if the Irghiz River skirmish was a one-off or the prelude to the invasion (which in part depends on when it happened - 1209 or 1219, which is also debated).-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6 and Remsense. And anyway, for the editors who want to delete it, why not just split it into separate articles and leave it as a list of the central asian campaigns? JM (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this as a list is another possibility if the consensus is to delete.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JM2023, because we already have those articles (Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai and Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire), and we already have a list of Mongol invasions and conquests as well. As the nomination pointed out, this is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as [a unique, separate topic] in WP:RS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that each and any way we structure information on this website has to have been done before in a previously published source. To extend that reasoning, the section Mongol invasions and conquests § Central Asia is SYNTH, and Mongol invasions and conquests § History and outcomes must be split up into precisely the military activities that are independently notable.
I did briefly attempt to disprove the assertion that this subject had never been published about under a title like this (which I gave up early without resolution after about ten pages of search hits from the first publisher I checked).
AirshipJungleman29, you're something of a subject matter expert on this, so question for you: is there any title and structure for this material that would satisfy your sense of history communication, or is the framing so problematic that it beguiles readers into misunderstandings?
To me, who knows little about this, it seems like a natural way to group information about Mongol expansion in a certain geographic and temporal space. Am I missing something? Is the article missing something? Looking back over the Mongol invasions and conquests article, I see the heading "West Asia", see a single three-sentence paragraph, and this intimidating section hatnote:
Main articles: Mongol invasions of the Levant, Anatolia, Khwarezmian Empire, Georgia, the Nizaris of Alamut, and Siege of Baghdad (1258)
What if I want a deeper understanding than the three sentences, but I don't want to read six separate articles? Is Wikipedia unable to summarise material to an intermediate level of detail because that level of detail doesn't really have a precedent in academic publishing? Folly Mox (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Folly Mox Mongol invasions and conquests is a pretty terrible article. I have no idea why it's organised geographically rather than chronologically, as is done for literally every war summary on Wikipedia. It is also ludicrously short on detail—the three sentence paragraph you outline could easily be twenty times the length. As it stands, the article's organisation is WP:SYNTH; but its content is not, because many sources do give an overview of the Mongol conquests.
  To answer your question, the only way this article should exist in my view is under the title List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia. But we do not have articles on subjects like List of Napoleonic War battles in modern Germany, or List of Second Sino-Japanese War campaigns in modern Shandong, and I don't think we should, even though they would undoubtedly be "intermediate level summaries" between Napoleonic Wars/Second Sino-Japanese War and Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars/List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Let me know if that answers your question or if I totally misread it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - AirshipJungleman29 thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry I meant to respond to this days ago, and had a reply all drafted, then my phone crashed and I forgot I never posted it.
  I think I'm of the opinion that simply reorganising information cannot be SYNTH, which involves drawing conclusions from a combination of sources where none of the sources individually supports the conclusion. The closest guidance we have for this opinion might be WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, or its catchily named upstairs neighbour WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION, which sounds like a curse hex where someone changed a single character to avoid a naming taboo. Both of these are from an essay.
  That's not to say we can just write about whatever we want as long as it's sourced adequately: some things are not encyclopaedic topics. Being that the nom and the creator seem to be coming to an agreement below, I don't think I'll be leaving a not-vote, but I did want to circle back to this before it closed. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my keep vote to ""split off"" into individual articles the content that doesn't already have an article (I'm planning to do this, in the meantime I can put the content in my sandbox), and ""disambiguate"' the title. I disagree with AirshipJungleman29 and Last1in that this article is SYNTH, but AirshipJungleman29 makes a really good point about this article not following existing conventions that others in this subject matter follow. I think it will be superfluous and redundant. Remsense and JM2023, see my change of mind here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3family 6; also Remsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As a closer, I have a few options available to me: Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify and Rename/Move. I can not "split off" this article into other articles or disambiguate it. Those are editorial decisions to be made by you all if it is decided that this article should be Kept. So most of this discussion here, while interesting, is besides the point and can occur on the article talk page if there is a consensus to Keep this article. Right now, I don't see a consensus so I'm relisting this discussion. As for any future contributions to this discussion, please keep them simple, realizing the limitations that a closer deals with, and move content-related discussions of what might happen later to this article to the article talk page. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right (sorry Liz), redirect to Mongol invasions and conquests#Central Asia, so the article creator can work on splitting out relevant information without losing access to the article history, and so existing links continue to function. Cleanup will involve removing the to-be circular hatnote at the redirect target. Folly Mox (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. As is, I'm copying the information I added to my sandbox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" exists as a single coherent subject, as oppose to WP:SYN? Yes, it does, because it appears as such in books, as one can easily find out using Google books search. For example, Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Central Asia (chapter IV, page 22), Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus, whole book named Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, and so and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All these invasions were sequentially undertaken by the armies of Genghis Khan, which unifies them as a single subject. This is pretty much as the Mongol invasion of Europe, which also consisted of many separate rides to occupy different specific territories. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvement and above arguments. Could be treated as a disambiguation page but it is not synth to give an overview of the included campaigns as demonstrated above. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Diaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Most of the available coverage is routine and local or not significant enough. Funny enough, there's this 2010 article in The San Diego Union-Tribune reporting that "Wikipedia officials have deleted the entry for Escondido Councilwoman Olga Diaz on their site, contending that she is not notable enough to have her own page on the popular online encyclopedia." Mooonswimmer 03:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NPOL as she is not a major local official. But LMAO over the article cited about. Rublamb (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 17 December 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!} 08:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Star, Alabama[edit]

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

Searching for this one was maddening: it seems that every third business in the state is either "Bright Star" something or "Brightstar" something else. The one good hit I got was a set of state statistical reports from the early 1900s which list it as a "post office". And that's all I can verify: on the maps it's a definite "there's no there there" crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous number of Lulu.com books to skip past in the search engines, someone having gone on a wild spree of (barely coherent) self-publishing; but if it helps, having got past that I discovered that this was election precinct #38 in Blount County, Alabama. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there is no SIGCOV, this topic does not pass GNG and so cannot be written about on Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also recommend Merge to Blount County, Alabama for this and other minor settlements in general.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable location. I don't see a point in merging when this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:51, 13 December 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. JBW (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raage Anuraage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2021.

Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a very popular series. Sources that are currently linked are clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage exists and indicates clearly that this is a popular series, so not against keep; opposing delete because at the very least redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Bangla#Former_broadcast should be warranted in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Article can't be redirected to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla as this page has been deleted. An aside, popularity is only important in that it may mean that there is some SIGCOV of the article subject, in itself though it doesn't establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- These sources on this page have enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.181.19.253 (talk) 08:06, 14 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation games incompatible with PlayStation 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTDATABASE, specifically the statement that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." While List of backward-compatible games for Xbox One and Series X/S and List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 have History sections putting the feature in context with the console's development and such, this article has only the list, sourced either to primary sources or YouTube videos. QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads like original research, and it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the rules against Wikipedia being a database as well as WP:OR. It's potentially useful info but misplaced. Maybe in Wikibooks or a different Wiki. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Contains WP:OR. User:Let'srun 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. They had 17 years to make this a notable article. Here we are still. There is no reason to sustain this listing. Any game that is forward-compatible should be listed in its article. Conyo14 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As far as I know, the vast majority of PS1 games are incompatible with the PS2. Content is too specific, and perhaps it has lost its meaning since both video games are considerably out of date. I archived it on the Wayback machine anyway Svartner (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:44, 19 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bromide Junction, Oklahoma[edit]

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

This is a rail junction southeast of Bromide, Oklahoma, where the Kansas, Oklahoma and Gulf Railway spur going into Bromide junctions with the main rail line. I cannot find significant coverage of this location, and the passing mentions I can find are of this site as a rail junction. I do not see a basis for an article here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. Hog Farm _Talk 01:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm getting pretty tired of these minor railroad waypoints being called "unincorporated communities". This isn't a community, and it isn't even a junction anymore, as from the map it looks like both railroads have been pulled up. Nothing notable to see here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, the only USGS topographic maps prior to 1957 are at 1:125,000 scale and lack the needed resolution. The Ardmore 1:125,000 scale 1957 quad shows it as a barely dicernable unlabled triagular railroad junction. And both railroads were not been even built in 1900 according to the Atoka 1:125,000 scale 1899 and 1900 quads. They show nothing in the way of railroads at this location. The Ardmore 1:24,000 scale 1957 quad shows the junction without either any associated buildings or infrastructure. The online geological maps in the USGS National geologic Map Database almost all show Bromide Junction, either labled or unlabled. without any associated infrastructure. There is lack of any mapped roads connecting Bromide Junction to anything.
I looked through Google Scholar and so forth, JSTOR, and Internet Archive. I found in Google Books insignificant references such as 1. a note that the length of track between Bromide and Bromide Junction was available be turned into a hiking trail, in brief a route description in a Interstate Commerce Commission Report, and in rate tables in postal and shippers guides for the United States and Canada. I found nothing in JSTOR and Internet Archive and a bunch of unrelated hits in Google Search. I found a lack of any reliable source that provides any documentation that Bromide Junction was ever an unincorporated or a populated place and notable in anyway. Paul H. (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A look at Google Earth shows that the train tracks are now gone and are now dirt roads or trails surrounded by ordinary fields. Paul H. (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same as Paul H., and the ICC report puts the nail in the coffin, as it outright says that Bromide Junction is a junction on a railway line for a spur line that went off to Bromide. Adding to that, we have the 1980s version of the GNIS on Google Books, which tells us the original feature classes before they got squashed some time around 2021. Bromide, Oklahoma is "ppl". Bromide Junction, Oklahoma is "locale", which is a not populated place. The ICC report even talks about how the mining company agreed to not put buildings next to the railway. This is more published-for-years "unincorporated community" lies, alas. Moreover, anything about the Bromide Crushed Rock Company belongs at Bromide, Oklahoma because it's easy to turn up things that say that that's where the company was. This junction is just a junction, not even a railway stop, and not even the ICC report was about the junction. It's on an old list of junctions, and that's it as far as I can find. There are well-documented railway junctions. This does not appear to be one of them. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally just an old unlabeled railroad junction, no evidence to suggest a "community" or "populated place" was ever located at or around said railroad junction. Looking at a satellite view of the junction, the railroad itself has since been dug out and all that remains are tree outlines and gravel/sand where the railroad once was. Nothing to see there. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 13 December 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!} 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patkuhi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search locates different places with the name Patkuhi. The place mentioned in article is quite difficult to find(I could not find it). The source material is quite old and there are no any new sources. killer bee  04:56, 13 December 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!} 08:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusofjerd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small settlement with nothing much notable. And as per above does not meet WP: GEOLAND. killer bee  05:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kushk-e Fashapuyeh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malekabad-e Shandak[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jub Kabud-e Sofla[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kehshur Asgar Babai[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalehdun[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tut-e Lashkaran[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khvodrowgan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poshtgar-e Shah Babek[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 December 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. Consensus is to delete this article. It seems there might be scope for article(s) on James Gillis (businessman) and/or Sarah Hayes Gillis, this can be considered elsewhere. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillis, California[edit]

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

Non-notable location; ineligible for PROD because it was PRODded once before, and declined, because apparently this was the site of a train accident in 1916 that injured one person and resulted in a lawsuit: [61]. That source a) is a passing mention and b) specifically describes Gillis as a siding, and rail sidings are not notable (nor are they "unincorporated communities"). This is a clear failure of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. No other information found other than routine listings in rail tables: [62]. Nothing found in news. Satellite view shows an empty stretch of track in the middle of fields, with no human structures. And the bit about a fruitcake festival appears to be a snarky hoax, as a search for "Gillis" only turned up articles about people with that name, and "Gillis + fruitcake" turned up nothing at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this was anything but a non-notable railroad siding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per user WeirdNAnnoyed, quick searches yielded on no results. killer bee  05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a biography of James Gillis (businessman), a soda water salesman and farmer, in the 1890 Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California and I have little doubt that this is simply a siding at the ranch that Gillis had "3 miles from Stockton" or one of the other land-holdings that he and his descendants had. The person is documented in a biography, and I have even found a second source in an Arcadia Publishing book. The ranch is not (hence the lack of clarity of exactly which land holding this is). Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Amusingly, Sarah Hayes Gillis is better documented and in more depth, I find after more searching, than her husband is, and he is a sub-topic of her, rather than the other way around as the 1890 History has it. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you proposing we make an article on these two people & mention this location in the article?? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod, disappointing that that was removed while the blatantly false "is an unincorporated community" remained. This vandalism from January is why we shouldn't mass-produce or keep junk that no one is paying attention to. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The railroad "siding" in question looks abandoned on satellite view and isn't connected to the main railroad line anymore. It was certainly a siding at some point, but that is no longer the case. The only thing other than fields around the siding is two structures (probably houses) about 400m north of the siding, although they are not part of whatever this "unincorporated community" is, they're just part of San Joaquin County in general. This "unincorporated community" is just a marker for a railroad siding. No population, structures, or anything else to see there. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-Bang-a-Boom![edit]

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is what's been happening to sibling articles in this topic area. We usually don't need to bother with a deletion discussion if your proposal is to redirect. See WP:BLAR. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 19 December 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.