< December 23	December 25 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slightly early per WP:SNOW, no way this is going to be kept. Sandstein 11:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Stavropol[edit]

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

Article is not yet ready for mainspace. Lacks sources, needs a good copy edit to make sense. I suspect this is a machine translation from somewhere else but not sure where. Annwfwn (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Annwfwn (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that this page was created by @Great Circassian, a user banned for sockpuppetry. I nominated it for speedy deletion instead. I apologize for wasting folks' time. Annwfwn (talk)

Annwfwn (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I untagged the article. This was not block evasion so CSD G5 is not suitable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok so I did it right the first time. Annwfwn (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article looks completely messy and text is not properly sourced. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 23:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how all of User:Great Circassian's articles look like. So few sources that it's impossible to tell whether they were real events or hoax articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is some kind of historical fantasy. There is not a single word in the Russian Wikipedia about this "attack". A Google search didn't yield anything either. --Khinkali (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a mess that even if this was notable, the only reasonable move is to blow it up and start over. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source given is too badly formatted to check. I can't tell if this is a hoax, a non-notable historical raid, or a potentially notable battle badly presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the arguments above. I searched for sources but couldn't find anything of value. (As mentioned, the single reference in the article is too poorly formatted to locate.) Even if this topic is found to be notable, the article is such a mess with nothing great in the edit history to fall back on that we should start over. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly source mess that may at least partly include hoax material/sources. Do not draftify. If there is anything here worth including in Wikipedia, it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:50, 31 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!} 23:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Reich-Rohrwig[edit]

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

WP:DEL#REASON

WP:NOTPROMO

WP:NOTRESUME

Article reads promotionally; a single editor with no other pages edited has contributed nearly the entire article. Xnyarla (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xnyarla (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject may have published a lot, but nobody seems to have noted it. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, reads entirely like a resume which wikipedia is not and with an excessive amount of WP:REFSPAM which does nothing to assert notability of the subject. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are court decisions, which you would expect for a lawyer, but aren't acceptable sourcing. Nothing found for this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't demonstrate N microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:54, 28 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 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their are no appropriate sources and my search for some to add to the article found none. UptonSincere (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are two inexperienced editors here, I'd like to hear from others who have participated in other AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couple sources, haven't evaluated reliability: https://cmscritic.com/radiant-cms-review https://web.archive.org/web/20220505204305/http://www.rubyinside.com/radiant-a-rails-cms-diamond-in-the-rough-52.html Japanese book off Gbooks: https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E5%85%A5%E9%96%80Radiant_CMS/feS9QhxUVdUC?hl=en&gbpv=0 A412 (Talk • C) 08:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wouldn't expect that the sources that signify its significance as required by WP:NSOFT can be found, and it's likely that the available sources won't meet WP:GNG either. This was one of the first libraries based on Ruby on Rails to appear, and has many trivial mentions as such, but libraries of this kind, offering trivial functionality on top of Rails itself like Radiant did, generally didn't get much traction in the Rails world. Radiant wasn't an exception and the project eventually died without leaving legacy apart from blog coverage in the early days of Rails. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:31, 27 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 all‎ as suggested by OwenX. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Montevideo[edit]

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

Another round of embassy spam, articles that reduplicate ones on bilateral relations but say nothing about their purported subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unnecessary content forks of bilateral relations articles. Created in a spree of content fork. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cypriot embassy, which is notable for violence in 1964 [1] and 1974 [2][3]. Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge, having a hard time finding non-primary sources. 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @OwenX. FactFindersEnigma (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @ बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:56, 31 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. Opinion is split between keep and merge. Since there is no prospect of a consensus to delete, there is no point in continuing this AfD. Consensus for a merger can be sought in a talk page discussion if desired. Sandstein 08:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Abu Daqqa[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E JM (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa. As an event it has clear notability, with the Committee to Protect Journalists having a dedicated piece on it and a ton of news articles about it. The rule for BLP/BIO1E is not to delete the entire article, but to focus it on the notable event, and there is a notable event here. nableezy - 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haifa School airstrike for now. Though I am unsure if even that event is independently notable. Airstrikes and people dying are a pretty routine part of war. Alternatively delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. It's a better target and where this really belongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also WP:RECENT, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:TOOSOON JM (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are under the impression that an air strike on a reporter is a routine event then WP:NOTNEWS simply does not apply. Unless you think we can not cover anything that has happened in the last month none of the others apply either. nableezy - 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It warrants coverage but not its own article. It should be merged or redirected to 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip probably along with the Haifa School airstrike page. We don't make independent pages for every incident in wars. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that’s why we have articles for individual hostages, for individual shooting attacks by Palestinians, for basically any act of violence by a Palestinian. Widely covered acts by Israel that are credibly called war crimes however is where we draw the line apparently. nableezy - 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. But FWIW I do not support articles about individual hostages, unless there is a credible claim to notability beyond that single event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OTHERSTUFF argument stops being useful when the editors voting to keep one set of articles vote to delete articles that have considerably more coverage. nableezy - 19:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Regardless, which editors and articles do you have in mind? JM (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this in its entirety. The Kip 07:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails at notability. e.g. fails WP:SUSTAINED. TaBaZzz (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa" as per Nableezy Synotia (moan) 19:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa - this is an unusual and notable event that has already well surpassed the coverage levels for WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move per Nableezy. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is the reason for nomination for deletion? The character achieves note clearly and prominently, and he is the first Al Jazeera journalist to be killed in Gaza! He is one of the founders of the Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip, meaning that he is not only a photojournalist, but one of the founders of the first Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip! Nominating the article for deletion or changing the name of the article is a very strange thing!!!--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, as explained above, is that he does not pass the guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't understand why he asked "What is the reason" when I, you, and others have provided policy-based arguments as to why it should be deleted, moved, or merged. I listed 9 reasons for deletion and still he asks "what is the reason". JM (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently he does not feel any of your listed reasons actually applies. Nor do I. nableezy - 02:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether he feels the reasons apply or not, he did not say; all he said regarding my reasons was "what is the reason" and whether he agrees with the reasons or not, he's not even acknowledging that I provided any, let alone 9 of them. JM (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Draftify. Certainly should be a "Killing of" article rather then a bio per WP:BLP1E. Unconvinced that notability at that level is clearly substantiated yet, so I think draftifying said article would probably be a good idea as well, but the move would be most important. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist belongs yet isn't mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be merged into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Maybe by current setup the article is too refined. It's possible. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts (i.e. including for Hamas "militants", which this journalist is not). gidonb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A journalist who deserves an article about himself and not only because of his killing. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eladkarmel Is "he deserves it" really your reasoning here? Any guidelines or policies backing that up? We should take this seriously and have a policy-based discussion, not an ethics debate. JM (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They might've meant that Abu Daqqa "warrants" an article on the grounds of his notability as a journalist rather than just his killing. Mooonswimmer 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, neutral on Nableezy's proposal to change the article title. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro Would you say that this coverage is of his death, or of his life in the context of his death? Or is there actual coverage of this person outside of the context of his death? Because if the latter is false, its plainly WP:BLP1E and the subject himself does not pass WP:GNG, so the article would at least need to be changed to Death of Samer Abu Daqqa, if not merged or deleted. JM (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa as he was killed by an Israeli drone attack and did not die peacefully in his sleep. In a normal world it would be Murder of Samer Abu Daqqa but for some reason we need an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of murder to call it that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . nableezy - 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM and remember ARBPIA JM (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing FORUM about my comment, it is about WP:DEATHS which specifies where we use killing, death, or murder. If you think my comment is an ARBPIA violation you can take it to AE where I imagine you might get a few chuckles. nableezy - 16:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is something FORUM about your comment because you admitted in that comment that you can't call it murder in the title without "an Israeli court to convict". And it's at least approaching an ARBPIA violation because "Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator." You've had blocks and bans before, you should know. If you can't follow standards you shouldn't be in this topic area. JM (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was remarking on the absurdity of needing an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of killing a Palestinian for that to be called "murder". If you feel that is an ARBPIA violation, by all means report it to WP:AE. nableezy - 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your userbox will likely get you there soon enough anyway. For now, focus on the deletion discussion WITHOUT closing in on ARBPIA. JM (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, cool. nableezy - 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per Gidonb. When the bulk of his article/notability is due to his death, a standalone wikibio isn't quite justified. The Kip 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. The killing may receive sustained coverage due to the subsequent investigations and might eventually warrant a standalone article (Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa). Mooonswimmer 20:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and redirect per nableezy. The death received non trivial coverage, in multiple reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:EVENT. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read EVENT which this clearly does not pass.

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters Without Borders has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court that includes Samer Abu Daqqa's killing, which will bring along with it continued coverage about it. The coverage has been very wide and in diverse sources, from CNN (American), Jerusalem Post (Israeli), The Guardian (British), al-Jazeera (Qatari), France 24 (French). It has caused complaints to be raised to the ICC (international impact) by both al Jazeera and RWB, it has notable NGOs like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders discussing it at depth, it has the UNESCO Director General making remarks about it. But you just proclaim that this clearly does not pass. It has been re-analyzed afterwards, it has widespread coverage in diverse sources. It rather clearly does pass, and only a refusal to engage with the sourcing can explain how somebody denies that without any semblance of a justification. nableezy - 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Enduring historical significance." No.

Widespread impact." No.

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time... Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a reporter being killed by a drone attack is routine, a referral to the international criminal court is routine, accusations of war crimes are routine. Silly me. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa. Even if he doesn't personally fulfil the notability criteria, his murder by the IDF is definitely notable, since it has been widely covered in the news and elsewhere. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not helping. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, so I modified my vote a bit. This topic just makes me very emotional. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. nableezy - 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the original comment, I can see it was incredibly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It calls back to the comment you made to me saying I don't think "Palestinian lives matter". If you can't follow ARBPIA and meet behavioural standards (and by your own admission "this topic just makes me very emotional"), you should avoid the Israel-Palestine topic completely. You risk a TBAN with such behaviour and it definitely doesn't belong in a deletion discussion. JM (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Md Joni Hossain (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Md Joni Hossain any policy reasons? This isn't a vote, you should attempt to provide reasons based in policies and guidelines. JM (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eladkarmel. Oppose the suggestion to change the name. Dovidroth (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (brief summary) to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This is BLP1E, there are no sources showing this has notability beyond the 1E, details given beyond the 1E are brief memorials in articles about the 1E. Ping me if WP:THREE WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth about something other than the 1E are found. // Timothy :: talk 07:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as is, or as Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa; int'l coverage has produced sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Samer Abu Daqqa's killing us now part of an ICC filing in a continuation of coverage and guarantor of future sustained coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: per WP:EVENT, WP:RECENT, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:TOOSOON, as above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touro University Rainbow Health Coalition[edit]

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

No hits in google news, newspapers or books. Some of the sources provided are local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and California. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 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!} 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:45, 26 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. Sandstein 11:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why the original poorly cited article was put up for deletion, however, I've now expanded it and added reliable sources. Not only is he descended from the Royal House of Denmark, but he's also in the line of the succession to the British throne which clearly makes him notable. Bermicourt (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 5,000 people in line to the British throne by the reckoning that you are using (which [as I've said elsewhere in other discussions] is faulty since in practice the line is restricted to British citizens and it would take a massive disaster of global proportions to kill the first 100 people in the line of succession, meaning no-one would be worrying about who the 101st person in line would be because we'd all be too busy trying to survive). Being descended from someone notable does not make the descendants notable. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But being cited in reliable sources does. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Entries in genealogical directories are insufficient to meet the WP:GNG criteria. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little of the article is actually about him personally as opposed to his relatives.170.76.231.175 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has he ever done anything, or just conjugated, and rocked up to weddings and funerals? That's a career of sorts, but it's not notable for anyone so low on the deposed and irrelevent royal ladder. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article says the same things 3 times over, once in the introduction, again in the "Life" section, and again in the infobox, tells us that this is genealogy, padded out to make it look like it is more than it really is. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe is a historcial person and of interest for a online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, an article for this person was previously deleted with the reason "Expired Wikipedia:PROD, concern was: No credible claim of notability: article is only a genealogical entry. Notability is not inherited." 2601:249:9301:D570:2C94:DFF9:B48E:5FEB (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The argument that the coverage is not significant is probably the winning argument currently, relisting to see if it can be disproven or alternatively if there's more support for that viewpoint.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is really nothing in this article but genealogy. The article would need sourced, biographical information about what this person has done with his life, besides being born to people of royal descent, marrying, and having children, to warrant keeping it on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: no sigcov available. Uhai (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete WP:NOTINHERITED violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:56, 28 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. Sandstein 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suboptimal health[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the concept (as defined by Yan and Wang) describes a set of risk factors for obesity, smoking, mental health issues, and being overworked. Except for sources 3-6, all sources include both Yu-Xiang Yan and Wei Wang on the author list. Sources 4 and 5 also do not have listed authors. This makes me seriously question if sources 3, 4, 5, 6 can pull their weight as reliable and independent (of Yan and Wang's research), especially to the high standard of WP:MEDRS. I suspect the original creation of this article was a COI edit, as several paragraphs show up as copy pastes on earwig from Yan and Wang's publications. I will now go over sources 3-6:

- Source 3 does not cite any of Yan and Wang's publications, but comes after in 2013, suggesting that the research on 'subhealth' is only coincidentally similar to 'suboptimal health' researched by Yan and Wang. It seems to be the only source independent of Yan and Wang to meet MEDRS.

- The concept of suboptimal health been used to uncriticially promote chinese traditional medicine (TCM) - see this removal for example. source (source 4), also mentions how TCM is central to the concept and markets TCM products to this end. It does not meet MEDRS as it is an opinion article.

- Source 5 uncritically promotes TCM, makes no citations, and it is unclear to me if it refers to the same topic that Yan and Wang cover. Does not meet MEDRS.

- Source 6 looks reliable, independent and has significant coverage, stating: "However, lacking of precise definition by official health bodies, the term "sub-health" remains a vague concept. The concept of sub-health has gone popular in the Chinese mainland in the 90s and has been controversial. It was accused of being a commercial excuse for the business of health care products by the local media." As a news report it does not meet MEDRS.

Sources I did find, by doing a google and google scholar search for 'subhealth' and 'suboptimal health':

- [4]. It seems reliable, independent and has significant coverage. It claims that Wang has published over 200 papers about SHS which I am a bit skeptical of, but otherwise this seems okay. Does not mention TCM involvement.

- [5]. Does not cite Yan and Wang. This paper is funded by a company trying to promote the aformentioned dietary supplement, and is unrelated to TCM. I doubt it would meed MEDRS due to the lack of independent review or funding.

Of course, uncritically promoting TCM does not alone warrant the concept/article for deletion, so my main argument is about the lack of independent sources meeting MEDRS with significant coverage to Yan and Wang's research. It is also unclear to what extent Yan and Wang's research may have been involved to promote TCM. My speculation is that this term has a popular Chinese equivalent term in circulation, which I cannot verify myself as I can't read Chinese. It is possible the topic has notability for Chinese Wikipedia, which it does have an article for (it seems to be a translated copy of this one). But I do find it concerning how the concept uncritically promotes TCM. I am not sure what role Wikipedia should play in presenting that material without undue weight, especially considering the paucity of sources I could identify in english which independently refer to Yan and Wang's research, since they seem to be the central researchers to the topic as it exists in China.

My personal opinion is to delete the article, and it could be restored when significant coverage by two reliable, independent sources meeting MEDRS are published and found -- ideally review articles of the concept, including its Chinese historical significance and how it is related to both TCM and dietary supplements. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translational medicine: the target is better sourced, and covers more than just a single term. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice for the reasons given by nom; merge as second choice, but to Traditional Chinese Medicine rather than Translational Medicine. Most of the citations discuss subhealth in the context of TCM, so at least with the references we have it seems like a better fit for that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Comment. After checking publications in Google Scholar, this seems to be a sufficiently established terminology in various contexts, for example [6],[7], [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources you linked: 3 has Yang and Wang, and 5 has Wang, so they are not independent (I happened to of already read source 3 as part of WP:BEFORE). I did not know 4 existed (thank you for finding it!), and at first it seems to be a reliable source to establish notability. Ideally, to meet MEDRS we would have multiple such independent reviews, so this still seems somewhat of a borderline case. Although I notice a few statements leading me to question its reliability:

- Many developed countries, including Saudi Arabia, I understand some of the authors reside in Saudi Arabia but I understand this statement to be false.

- According to the diagnostic guidelines provided by the Association of Chinese Medicine, symptoms in three areas, namely, systematic, psychological, and social, are evaluated to assess SHS This confirms in part that SHS is associated to TCM, although the exact relationship is still unclear to me. In any case, a significant amount of SHS studies seem from Wang's research group.

- Of the four metrics among 12-14 articles assessed in the review (SHSQ-25, SHMS V1.0, MSQA, SSS) the original proposals of SHSQ-25 and MSQA appear to have been developed by Wang's group. Not a factor to rule it out, just as an observation.

- The paper states SHS has now been recognized as an essential construct in personalized medicine to decrease the risk of developing disease and enhance general health. Moreover, the idea of SHS reflects the belief that chronic diseases can be effectively predicted and prevented before a clinical manifestation of severe pathologies from the view of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine and cites [9] for support, which seems like a paper mill as the only search result for the journal is a LLC company statement. The quote is a significant claim considering the little research in the area and makes me possibly question the neutrality of the authors on the subject.

I do not have a good explanation, but I have to wonder why there is no research I can seem to find covering this in the US, considering this particularly named theory has been around since at least 2009. Anyway, I think these are all factors that should be weighed in consideration of the outcome of this AfD. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I certainly do not have time and expertise to look so carefully at all these sources... My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 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, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and given journals or content published in journals (namely about "suboptimal health") are not inherently notable, especially concepts that only function as one researcher's "brand". बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:18, 26 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!} 23:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh Micholi[edit]

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

Fails NFILM. No review found online. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. To establish the noteworthiness of the film, I have expanded the lead section (and rearranged a few sentences) to include discussion of the film’s prominence because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). I have also increased the cites for the article. Scholar165 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing deletion (as at the very very least a redirect to the director's page is in my view warranted.) But the infos are verifiable and this is a 1962 film with very notable cast and director, which contributes to the film's notoriety (WP:INHERIT does not apply to this statement, thank you in advance for not mentioning it). ~~So I would rather like a plain~~ keep as the film ~~might~~seems to meet the following criterion: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." (WP:NFILM) if we can consider it is a major part of Ravindra Dave's and Male Sinha's career~~, but this very point would need to be established more clearly maybe~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) (changed to plain keep in the light of the improvements made by Scholar165)[reply]
Thank you for your useful comments. As per your suggestion toward the end of your comments, I have expanded the lead section and rearranged a few sentences to explain the noteworthiness of the film because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). Scholar165 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@Scholar165: and thank you for the improvements made to the page. I changed my !vote to full Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Mushy Yank and @User:Scholar165:You are saying that the film passes second criteria of WP:NFIC which says "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career" but this film is not the "major part of their career". The film only "features significant involvement" not "major part of their career". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not the "major part of their career"(s) (emphasis mine) but as it was a commercial success, an important/major part of them (you will note that the guideline uses "a"). Still, if you think a redirect to Ravindra Dave#Hindi films and merge there is better, I am not opposed to this solution, personally (although I still do think a keep is better). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems you posted the same message twice@Scholar165:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:41, 23 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, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I added much of the second para in the lead section to establish the article’s notability after the deletion nomination. Also added were several new cites and an image. If anyone has suggestions on anything else I can add, I will try my best to incorporate these into the article. Thanks.Scholar165 (talk) 13:37, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jay[edit]

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

Article is promotional and contains many dubious statements. Notability is not established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most statements are unsourced, the rest is in non-RS. Salon is about the best I can find, [10], but that's all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a number of reviews and articles about him in The New York Times, including this review of one of his magic shows, a detailed article about his marriage, an article about his magic collection, and coverage of him teaching prisoners magic by mail. I also found coverage of him in The Austin Chronicle (link), Forbes (link), The Plain Dealer (link), The Harvard Gazette (link), Leaders Magazine (link), The OSU Alumni Magazine (link), Playbill (link), and other places. There are even reviews and coverage of his magic books on Boing Boing (link), The Guam Daily Post (link) and WCPO (link) while the Wikipedia Library shows coverage of his magic work in magazines and journals such as Boys' Life, Entertainment Weekly, i-Perception, Journal of Hand Therapy, Odyssey, and other places. Finally, he's appeared on major TV shows including The Today Show (link) and the Late Late Show with James Corden (link). Yes, the article needs work but all of this coverage shows Jay meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review the sources presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources found by SouthernNights and Oaktreeb, this subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Let'srun (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these new sources are valid and demonstrate N. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:06, 28 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. Just a piece of advice, before proposing deletion, see if a recent edit has removed a substantial amount of content from an article being reviewed. It's likely the subject of vandalism and doesn't warrant deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Live[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty notable. Discussed in many secondary sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, has demonstrated non trivial coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, able to find coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:06, 29 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. Withdrawing nomination. Article has been improved and now passes NPOL. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Meena[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Author has been creating a lot of these unsourced stubs, and none of them seem notable enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NPOL as member of state legislative body. Djflem (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject does pass WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator, but this is currently an unsourced BLP. Curbon7 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable, passes NPOL; but it is a biography, shouldn't this be BLPPRODded before this AfD? Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 06:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Passes NPOL as MLA. For citations, see India Today , The Times of India and The Indian Express. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I've added a source which mentions his full name. Should be more obvious now that this passes WP:NPOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the recent addition of citations, this passes NPOL. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:08, 28 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 draftify.‎. Obviously not suitable as an article in its present state, but obviously likely to become useful soon, so draftifying is common sense. JBW (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 deaths in the United States[edit]

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

Clearly not an appropriate article per WP:CRYSTAL. CoconutOctopus talk 19:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Draftify. By the time this AFD is over, it will just about be 2024, and would probably just be recreated within a day or two anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:15, 24 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!} 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lost[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK. Only source is a database listing. Cannot find any independent sources. Article has been tagged for additional references since 2012. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sufficient awards/reviews/etc. to warrant a pass of WP:NBOOK. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:10, 28 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 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search and all I found is some posts about new versions. No sources discuss this web browser as significant. Also, I believe that being part of KDE does not mean that it is notable and should have its own Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article had three prior AfDs, was deleted twice, undeleted once, and underwent two DRVs. Everything that could have been said about it and its sourcing has already been said. I'm sure the nom meant well in nominating this (on his 75th edit to the project), but at this point, any further discussion about this article is pointless, if not disruptive. I get it; sourcing is marginal. There are good arguments both for and against keeping it. It also exists on wiki in 18 other languages, and will likely be recreated here again anyway. I don't often do this, but can we just leave this one alone? Owen× ☎ 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three previous nominations were in 2010 when the browser was actively developed. But in 2014 the development stopped and now the project is dead, it became apparent that it has no prospects and I think now it isn't used as default browser anywhere. Given this information and that many arguments for keeping this article in the previous nominations were in the spirit of "this browser is default in major distro" or "probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active development", I think the further discussion is not entirely pointless. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sure, it was a part of KDE and the default browser for a distro, but I don't think it's notable. It never went anywhere and hasn't seen any notable activity in a decade. I also checked if another semi-obscure KDE browser, Angelfish, had a page and it doesn't, which makes me think this shouldn't either. You could make the argument that it was notable at one point, but anymore I'm not so sure. It's also been nominated for deletion on KDE's own wiki due to being abandoned. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am leaning delete but per OwenX, I have read through the previous AfDs and the DRVs andbased on those (yes, all in 2010), I think we need to at least discuss the sourcing. The project may be dead now, but notability is permanent. If it was notable in 2010 then it is notable as a historic item despite being essentially dead now. Having said that, source discussion is largely absent from the AfDs, so looking at them now, using numbering in what is currently the latest revision [11] for brevity:

Project page. Primary, not independent.
KDE announce page. Primary, not independent.
Blog. Self published. Not RS, not independent, Primary.
KDE project license. Primary, not independent.
LinuxBSDos review. Secondary. Review is gone and domain appears hijacked but the ref contains a quote, yet the mention appears trivial.
Kubuntu.org. Primary, not independent.
Kubuntu archive. Primary, not independent.
AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.
projects.kde.org - Primary, not independent.
AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.

So in summary there is one old secondary source that might be retrievable through the webarchive but appears to be trivial. If we admit it, though, we are still not at WP:GNG. It probably never did meet GNG, but we should be looking to see if it made any kind of impact. Searching, I found reviews like this: [12] but that is a submitted review, so won't be reliable and that seems to be a general problem. It gets mentioned in a number of books talking about Linux distros, such as this one [13], but this one is typical in saying little more than that it has a user agent switcher. I thought Logiciel pour le World Wide Web was going to do the trick and then saw it was sourced to Wikipedia! Other books failed to turn anything up. This paper looks at reverse engineering the browser [14], but the significance of this browser is not really demonstrated there. Rekonq is chosen because that was the browser of a TOR user investigated by the FBI and who was de-anonymised using a technique described in the paper. The fact that rekonq was used is just chance and nothing there would allow an encyclopaedic article to be written. So, after spending a good deal of time on this one, I cannot say I think this software was ever independently notable. However, I have left the !vote unsaid at this point as we have a few more days. If anyone can provide secondary sources showing it was independently notable, I would be happy to keep the page. Otherwise it's a delete (or merge to KDE).

Delete: failing WP:NSOFT and given sources above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:35, 30 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 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TogetherAI[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. Note that this company is different to togetherai.com, which makes looking for the sources slightly harder. MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing out there I can find that would come close to meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Only one hit on GNews and a few blog and forum mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given how recently this was created and then moved back and forth between mainspace, I don't want to use soft-delete as an option as I doubt it will 'stick'. Relisting to establish clearer consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I write this, there is one independent source for the funding. The other sources are the company's github and huggingface page. Can't seem to find notability myself. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:12, 28 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!} 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Julius[edit]

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

Man with a job. Subject doesn't appear to be notable. WP:NOTCV PepperBeast (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. PepperBeast (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are all associated with the subject. Many do not even mention the subject - and appear to be added to support other loosely related text and bolster "notability by association" claims. A search in other sources (like Irish Independent and Irish Times) returns nothing at all. The WP:COI and WP:PROMO overtones are also difficult to ignore. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Guliolopez. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Guliolopez - Spleodrach (talk) 17:45, 28 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!} 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triapeirogonal tiling[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. As with the now deleted pentaapeirogonal tiling, there is no mention of this tiling in either of the cited sources, a search yields no additional sources, and the article appears to be entirely original research. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as my opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentaapeirogonal tiling: nothing in here is about this specific tiling. It is purely original research based on the general properties of uniform hyperbolic tilings. Perhaps we could justify it as WP:CALC if it were merely a line in another article, stated without the use of neologisms, but that cannot be the basis for existence of an entire article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued above. What we need is an article that explains the general workings of hyperbolic tilings as well as possible, not these neologistic, OR-ful fragments. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 25 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 Already speedily deleted by Spicy as created by a block-evading editor.‎. JBW (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Md Sunnat Ali Mollik (journalist)[edit]

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

Zero indication of notability. No claims of significance. He is one of over 100 thousand who fought in the Bangladesh Liberation War. The reliable sources do not focus on the subject and mention him in passing. The sources on him, Rudra, are not reliable or notable, and it seems to be a copy of the article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 Check out the news in his name in Bangladesh's top newspaper Janakantha.[15]https://www.dailyjanakantha.com/national/news/557783#:~:text=%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%A4%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0,%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%87%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%9B%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%E0%A5%A4 Abu Sayeed Hossan (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, in addition it was created by Abu Sayeed Hossan who is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Md Sunnat Ali Mollik, confirmed on bnwiki by checkuser[16]. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@আফতাবুজ্জামান The name of the registered person may be the same as the user name, but the user and the registration page are not the same person. Abu Sayeed Hossan (talk) 18:36, 24 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. Self-advertisement - NN performer Alexf^(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stainoff[edit]

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

Has a claim of significance with "Stainoff's First studio album Rocketbee (2023), debuted number one in South Africa", however this is false as far as I can tell. Does not have SIGCOV. Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worth noting that this is an autobiography. RetroCosmos (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RetroCosmos: yeah then it definitely needs to be draftified at least. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if it is possible to remove the statement as false and unsourced and then tag it under WP:A7? Or just tag it under WP:G11 Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This can easily pass G11 in my view RetroCosmos (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a G11 in my view, it isn't a blatant advert. The relevant speedy criteria would be WP:G3 as a "blatant hoax", but I feel it is borderline. Many admins would delete it as G3, but some would not. --Mvqr (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the first album by an unknown beginner debuted at #1 in a major country, it would make the news. All this rapper has is the usual social media pages and self-uploads of a few songs that have generated no notice from anyone else whatsoever. The procedural discussion on speedy deleting above is not really necessary and could actually be a distraction; such an obvious failure of notability can be deleted today or next week. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per @Doomsdayer520’s comment. (My bold isn’t working, I’m editing from mobile currently. It prints as ‘’’.)

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Autobiography of a non-notable individual, they even vandalized Nasty C and put their details there moments ago. dxneo (talk) 18:23, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Profound Lore Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. --Viennese Waltz 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily found plenty of sources that focus on the label and the majority of artists it signs on are notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which three sources are you suggesting to support the company's NCORP? Graywalls (talk) Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly is one of the more important indie labels in the sense used at WP:MUSIC. HadesTTW has also just added a raft of sources. Chubbles (talk) 12:55, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabarna Roy[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Cited references are paid per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Aronitz (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the cited sources lack independent coverage (and thanks for sharing WP:NEWSORGINDIA, I wasn't aware of this practice). I also didn't find any reliable sources proving notability in my own search.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:04, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usha S. Kakade[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Cited references are paid per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Aronitz (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not deal with the subject in-depth and, as the nominator correctly states, are not independent. There is mention of some book, but the book was not written by Kakade. Neither of the awards is such a well-known and significant award or honor that WP:ANYBIO would be met, and the fact that the award was given did not receive meaningful independent coverage, but is carried by promotional outlets—for example: Gravittus Foundation Founder, Usha Kakade felicitated by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is by "NewsVoir" which is a "Press Release Submission Services in India".—Alalch E. 13:46, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Laury Dahl[edit]

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

A professor and director of a university legal clinic, minimal citations (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Cynthia+Laury+Dahl&btnG=). Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR (unless someone is better at finding reviews than me), or WP:GNG. Article has been PRODded before. Perhaps WP:MILL. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article only shows up in search in some educational faculty sites and a LinkedIn account is the second result. Nothing really says anything about her except for that she works there, so I agree that it fails WP:GNG.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:55, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Burke[edit]

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

Coverage fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or general paid media. Fails WP:NPROF. Aronitz (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. CptViraj (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hate to see this, the keep !vote on this, as its such a poor article. Its promotional and mostly about the company and will need a heavy copyedit. However, looking at Google Scholar, I see more than 5 paper with more than 100 citations, so likely passes WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with scope_creep, the citations probably do mean a pass of WP:NPROF. Also, WP:DINC, though the article has been recently edited to be less promotional about the company. There is also a bit of coverage that helps towards WP:GNG, though perhaps not sufficient on it's own. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:52, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Dmello[edit]

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

Coverage is in paid media as defined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This bio fails WP:GNG. Aronitz (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. CptViraj (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in this article that indicates notability or justification for the article. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:04, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kotii Reddy[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, coverage is about his company, fails WP:GNG. Aronitz (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. CptViraj (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any significant secondary coverage for this businessman. There are some websites linked in the article that do discuss the subject, but they are mostly promotional pieces or provide most of their coverage towards his company rather than himself. Another linked source was an interview where the subject talked about himself. I would say that the article does not meet WP:NBASIC due to a lack of independent coverage, and would note that the creator of this article was blocked for potential involvement in WP:UPE. The Night Watch (talk) 16:50, 24 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 kept, but moved to Grand Canyon Trophy Game, shifting focus to the regular series of games played, rather than the question of whether a notable rivalry exists. BD2412 T 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Rivalry[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of in depth, secondary coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. The article was deleted under a different name in 2014 and recreated [[17]], but as it stands the current article seemingly fails in the same areas the previous one did. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arizona, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the game has a trophy and the article has good sourcing. A notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, as Wikipedia articles on the subject of rivalries don't have to only focus on major college games (Ohio-Michigan, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done any digging yet, but none of the sources currently in the article represent WP:SIGCOV (i.e, in-depth coverage of a rivalry). Three of the five sources are clearly non-independent (published by the universities or the conference), and I don't believe FBSchedules.com has ever been recognized as a reliable, GNG-bestowing source. (The first two sources are reliable and independent but don't have real depth of coverage about the rivalry.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was previously deleted in 2014. Joeykai (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My source analysis is set forth in my earlier comment, and noothing else has been presented. I voted "Delete" at the 2014 AfD on this trophy, and nothing has changed materially. There is still a lack of SIGCOV wih in-depth coverage about the trophy or rivalry -- just some passing references in game coverage to the fact that the winner gets the trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if this were a close case where there was some SIGCOV, other factors such as geographic proximity, the trophy, and competitiveness would weigh in favor of keeping, but I haven't seen anything that could be called SIGCOV here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but we have categorization and framing problems across a lot of articles like this. As a series of annual games with a name (whether it has a trophy is irrelevant), this appears to pass GNG, and would probably be better as Grand Canyon Trophy Game and rewritten to make it clear it is an annual series of games, instead of us claiming it is actually a sports rivalry. What's happened here is that this and several other things have "rivalry" in their names and are a class of things that are sometimes called "rivalry games", but they are not sports rivalries as WP and most sources are using that term. That is, "rivalry" is ambiguous, and writers of this article have confused one meaning with the other just because of the term being used in the name or being used in vague, amgiguous ways by some source material. A "rivaly game" is simply a periodic game (usually a form of exhibition game) between two teams for the entertainment of themselves and their fans, or occasionally as part of some league system but given a name and sometimes a trophy as a promotional mechanism.
The entire Category:Big Sky Conference rivalries and probably several others like it has completely confused the idea of such a game series with the idea of an actual sports rivalry: a subculture of animosity or faux-animosity between two teams/institutions and especially the fandoms thereof, a rivalry that has a life of its own and garners source coverage unto itself as a social phenomenon, not as promotional lingo used by coaches or athletic department administrators, not just passing use of "rivalry" as a word in routine game coverage, and not simply a game or game series name that happens to have "Rivalry" in it. This article sipmly has not been properly framed as an article on a series of games (which is what the subject is) instead of a sports rivalry (which it is not in any sense that is notable or what Wikipedia should care about).
The whole category structure relating to this stuff needs to be cleaned up so that exhibition games are classified as such and no longer classified as "rivalries". And lots of these articles need to be rewritten. E.g., to pick one at random, Beehive Bowl (which was quite properly moved away from Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry in 2016, but was never rewritten) misleadingly opens with "The Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry, known as the Beehive Bowl, is the annual football game between Southern Utah University and Weber State University"; clearly this is about an annual game series, not about a sports fan subculture of rivalry. The article has ridiculous WP:OR in it, like "In 2011, Southern Utah joined the Big Sky Conference, making it a yearly rivalry." Two teams coming into competition with each other by being in the same conference or other league system does not make them "rivals" (any more than any other two competitors in any sport are "rivals").
While AfD can make a few dents in the problem by picking off articles that claim to be about rivalries that don't have sufficient sourcing to exist as articles no matter how the content is reframed and renamed and recategorized, a more systematic approach is needed for dealing with the mess that has been created, because a lot of these articles on named series of games have been mis-written as rivaly articles, as if they are something like Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, which they demonstrably are not. I'm not even sure where best to address this. The issue seems most common in American college football, but actually crosses sport and national lines. Maybe WT:SPORT is the place? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
College football rivalry games are not exhibition games. They are usually regular season games. On rare occasions, rivals may also play in post-season bowl or playoff games. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Even if one views the article as being about the trophy, I am not seeing SIGCOV about the tropy. Did you see sourcing that rises to the level of in-depth coverage about the trophy? Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not about the trophy per se, but yes about the game series (which involves a trophy), which is why I didn't go with delete. I think the "nexus" of all of this, now that I've dug a little deeper, is List of NCAA college football rivalry games. There really does seem to be a term rivalry game but this is not the same thing as a rivalry in the sense WP means in its category system and as the term is used in more clearly written journalism than some of the sources at these articles. What's happened is that rivaly game sometimes get shortened in sports writing to rivalry (and in a few cases even in the name of such an event), but this is a different meaning, along the lines of 'organized series of periodic match-ups between a pair of teams in geographical proximity to each other'. It's an ambiguity we are not accounting for. We need to have a category on rivalry games (a series of such matches between two such nearby teams, often but not always with a trophy, and often but not always with a distinct name for the game series), and move the keepable articles to titles that make it clear they are about an event series not about an alleged rivalry in the other sense, of 'a subculture of sports-related antagonism between two teams' fandoms'. E.g. Central Michigan–Eastern Michigan football rivalry and pretty much every other article misnamed and miscategorized like it, are not about "rivalries" but about an organized series of "rivalry game" matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Language (here) defines a "rivalry" as "competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field. 'there always has been intense rivalry between the clubs'" A series of rivalry games between two clubs seems to meet that definition to a T. I just don't see this particular "rivalry" having sufficient depth of coverge to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 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, Daniel (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before heading to the reference section to confirm notability, I thought, "If I heard the phrase 'Grand Canyon Rivalry,' I would want to know what it meant, and this article addresses that neatly." I then went to the reference section and confirmed notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: Did you find sources with WP:SIGCOV -- i.e., in depth coverage of this series as a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but call it Grand Canyon Trophy Game until secondary sources can confirm its indeed a rivalry at which point a re-name to Grand Canyon Rivalry would make sense. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Left guide
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/18/suu-football-much-stake-years-grand-canyon-rivalry/75974816/		(presumably)	The title is misleading, as the first sentence makes a routine announcement of the upcoming game, and then diverts to discussing the Southern Utah coach and other aspects of the team's season the rest of the way. Not focused on the matchup/rivalry and says almost nothing meaningful about Northern Arizona aside from a single passing mention from the SUU coach: The guys have higher aspirations now. It’s about beating NAU and all that comes with it.	✘ No
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/19/suu-football-demario-warren-faces-former-teammate-grand-canyon-rivalry/76085934/		(presumably)	~ Doesn't really discuss the two involved teams as a matchup or rivalry, mostly about the two individual coaches from each team who happen to have a prior personal connection and their anecdotes about it. Not particularly focused on the matchup/rivalry but not entirely off-topic either.	~ Partial
https://bigskyconf.com/news/2015/11/14/FB_1114150039.aspx	It's the conference's website, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won't count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150907212820/http://www.nauathletics.com/sports/fball/2012-13/releases/20121106d133ob	It’s the website of one of the involved teams, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://suutbirds.com/news/2013/11/21/209319368.aspx	It’s the website of the other involved team, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://fbschedules.com/nau-southern-utah-schedule-12-game-football-series-2028-to-2039/		? The site says they’re a partner of USA Today, so I initially believed they’re reliable although another editor has expressed uncertainty about its reliability.	~ Most of this is WP:CRYSTAL but there are two paragraphs that offer overview-level encyclopedic coverage of the matchup as an established cohesive topic: Northern Arizona and Southern Utah, both current members of the Big Sky Conference, compete annually in a matchup dubbed the Grand Canyon Rivalry. However the Thunderbirds are leaving the Big Sky for the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) beginning with the 2022 season. Northern Arizona and Southern Utah have played each other every season since 2008 and have met 25 times overall. The two schools played twice during the spring 2021 season, with the Lumberjacks coming out on top in both contests, 34-33 in Flagstaff and 28-20 in Cedar City. Northern Arizona currently leads the overall series 15-10.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Comment: Attached above is my analysis of the sources in the article with regards to WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 12:01, 31 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dean Memorial Trophy[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 WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the general notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, even though this one had the major games played before internet era and newspaper references are harder to add--Banderas (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several new sources. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:28, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosillo (construction company)[edit]

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

Lacks non-routine significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP standard. Aronitz (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References could arise in the future, but as it stands now, it seems unlikely that they would appear and bring this article above notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks any notability whatsoever. Possibly promotional. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 14:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 24 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. Nobody supports the very perfunctory deletion nomination. Sandstein 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Humic Substances Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing and recognized organization in the field [18]; among other things, they maintain and provide a set of standard reference materials (IHSS standards) that are widely used in soil research [19]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Elmidae is right to keep this, but I'd point out that Humic acids are the gardener's equivalent of complementary medicine, a thing where products whose composition isn't even known to the producer are offered for sale with promises of enhanced plant growth based on extremely scanty evidence and no scientific basis. Like complementary medicine, everyone involved in humic acids is very vocal, but the terminology is more impressive than the underlying facts. We should keep this organisation not on the basis that it supports important science, but on the basis that it's generated evidence of notability in a field that gets written-about. Elemimele (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything.

I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances.

In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me.

The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse.

About potential other sources, here's some:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/4/1044 - "[...]we studied the standardized samples of HS of the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS)." ... could be used as an independent source to show and characterize an activity of the society in supporting soils research
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-26398-3 - more of the above
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004313541530021X - etc
https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/suwannee-river-natural-organic-matter-isolation-of-the-2r101n-ref
https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40538-021-00229-4 - there's actually quite a lot of these studies where somehow it's the IHSS that provides the materials - I think that should be covered but lack the technical background in this area to say for sure or to say exactly how it should be done
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=594703604&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKlmO1zdHuPzIE9DqtqzXFXVRISa1Q:1704008925634&q=inauthor:%22International+Humic+Substances+Society.+International+Meeting%22&tbm=bks - sources from within the group's conferences, useful

I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

^^ Chin, YP., McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers (talk) 08:09, 31 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 12:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laksh Chadalavada[edit]

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

Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, The Times of India supplements are brand posts and this article is completely cited with such coverage with "no proper byline". Fails WP:RS/WP:GNG. Aronitz (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Andhra Pradesh. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is about 80% sourced to the Times of India, with no other RS found. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha[edit]

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

This is either a hoax or original research. Lacks credible coverage to verify and pass WP:GNG criteria. Aronitz (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've spent more time than I'd like looking at this page; I came to it after seeing it at DYK. While the bare bones of the content is supported by a source, it isn't a very strong source, and as I've said at ANI previously there are serious sourcing issues with most of the content the author has produced. At this point I'm fairly certain that the phenomenon is a manufactured one; the temples are real, of course, but if there's a documented link between them that's been given this name, I'm struggling to find evidence of it. TL;DR: there isn't substantive coverage of this phenomenon by name in good sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This article is almost certainly a hoax. No sources go into the subject in-depth, and very few sources even talk about the subject. There's no evidence that he is related to any of those temples. The article goes to talk about a legend, which fails WP:NOT and is obviously false. The article goes more into detail about the temples than the subject. I think this should be speedily deleted per G3.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:03, 24 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 Lethal Company. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeekerss[edit]

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

Fails GNG. More tabloid promo than an encyclopedic article, this is a CFORK of Lethal Company. Was redirected, but then a redirect war started [20]. I think the redirect should be restored after the article is deleted. BEFORE showed nothing that makes this subject notable apart from the suggested target. Nothing in this article is worth merging. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, Gbkang said let another user remove it if they agree with you. If it's reverted by someone else, I won't undo it. So you could just restore the redirect yourself. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to Lethal Company - Subject is not notable, but closing the AfD, keeping the article, and turning it back to a redirect is better than just deleting the page and starting over again. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lethal Company. I don't know where this "speedy" is coming from since it's not a malformed nomination, but harmless to create a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – subject not notable, fails WP:NBIO; hits on Google news shows up his notable game Lethal Company instead with brief mentions. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 06:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lethal Company per above. The developer as an individual is not notable enough for a standalone biography, but the game is notable and the developer is a plausible search term that should direct the user to the article about their game. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:16, 29 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 Bukhara. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress walls and gates of Bukhara[edit]

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

Fails GNG, is an unneeded CFORK of Ark of Bukhara. Sources in article are blogs/travel websites, not archeological sources. BEFORE found nothing that makes this notable apart from the main article. Sourcing in the article shows there is nothing to merge, no objection if there is a consensus to redirect. // Timothy :: talk 10:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone, again you beat me to sorting by seconds! Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, CFORK is sufficient for an immediate WP:BOLD redirect, AfD is not even necessary in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Weak keep Ark of Bukhara seems to be about the fortress or citadel, while this one is more about the outer walls of the city, which would be appropriate to have an article on, perhaps City walls of Bukhara. At present this seems to be a poor article, but the solution is to improve, not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I have studied the city in detail (I took Siege of Bukhara to featured article quality last year), and believe that the best solution is redirecting to Bukhara. As Peterkingiron points out, Ark of Bukhara refers to the inner citadel TimothyBlue—not the walls of the city itself. I do not believe that there is sufficient detail for this article to stand independent—e.g. Pugachenkova in Bosworth and Asimov's UNESCO history summarizes (p.508) the walls and gates of the whole Transoxiana region in around a page, and I have not seen enough scholarship elsewhere. Per WP:NOPAGE, I thus think that redirecting to Bukhara is the best solution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bukhara per ~~ AirshipJungleman29 above. Any appropriately sourced content can be merged from the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 30 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!} 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slapsoftware[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. As far as I understand, this project is dead, I tried searching for independent sources on Google, couldn't find anything.

Official site shows something about music. Sourceforge page doesn't even have neither code nor license information.

Most sources provided in the article are leading to 404 pages with no archived versions. Sources which are live are either unreliable or just briefly mention the subject. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Software, and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not find any sources for the same. Sohom (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Andre🚐 06:24, 25 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!} 07:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pathuri Nagabhushanam[edit]

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. He served as chairman of a local party at local level. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor local party functionary. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Andhra Pradesh. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 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!} 07:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Thanwala[edit]

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL as city level president of a youth wing. And also created by a sockpuppet. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and the mass of refs are all to unreliable sources, likely churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 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. There is no support for deletion, but the "keep" opinions are unconvincing in light of applicable policies and guidelines. There is therefore no consensus either way. Sandstein 11:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Prevention Trials Network[edit]

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

Seems completely promotional material and only primary source coverage - all in-article sources are either HPTN or clinicaltrials.gov links to studies ran by HPTN. According to XTools, Emillerfhi360 (talk · contribs) has 85% article ownership, an account with no edits outside the article over a five year period, who has potential undisclosed COI, and was cautioned on the article's talk page. Not to justify the AfD, but this has a huge amount of in-body external links and overlinking, I am surprised it was not picked up by an automated tool.

Searching for independent sources turned up:

- [21], non signficant coverage

- [22], not independent, as Eric Miller is the HPTN press contact ([23])

There are plenty of sources which cite HPTN studies, eg. [24], but I cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage.

Courtesy ping: @Emillerfhi360 Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure This organization has probably spent about US$1 billion on its programs. In the field of medical research orgs often avoid the media. I am not sure that this org meets WP:N. Much of the coverage mentioning this org is about its research and programs. I am sure that most of the content here is promotional and if this article is to be kept, then it would benefit from 1) having all promotional or self-published citations deleted then 2) deleting all content without citations. I think the text remaining may be 3-5 sentences. If there is appetite for deleting content, then I support that. I suspect that we could find at least a couple of sources covering the org based on how much money it consumed over decades. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HIV Prevention Trials Network has made robust contributions to the field of HIV prevention. Since its establishment it has conducted over 78 trials, enrolling more than 172,000 study participants, and published over 800 papers. I think the topic is notable. Rodgers V (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: their studies are often cited in top peer-reviewed aggregators such as Nature and The Lancet, as well in secondary sources. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 17 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!} 08:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above, there is scientific documentation intertwined with the organization. Svartner (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing the keep comments, I would like to mention the essay section WP:SOURCESEXIST. It does not matter how many studies the org publishes, there need to be at least two sources meeting WP:GNG and ideally WP:NORG about the organisation itself - specifically, they need to cover the organisation with significant coverage. Unless we are inclined to invoke WP:IAR here, of course. Also, quoting the guideline WP:ORGSIG: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Note the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbicide Trials Network, the reasoning for nomination I used there is similar. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:14, 27 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!} 07:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Scientific Club[edit]

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of this organization. Thenightaway (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources I could find provide trivial coverage of the club's participation in events. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a search for النادي العلمي القطري (Arabic transliteration of the club's name) on Google News turns up coverage, including this article by Al Sharq and this article by Al Arab. Left guide (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not independent reliable sources. These are government outlets reporting on the activities on a government organization in a country with no press freedom. Thenightaway (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth, significant coverage in independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:03, 19 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!} 08:35, 24 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!} 07:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Utsumi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:PROF, lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanboy spam. How on earth has this been around since 2006?!?!?! A search on Google scholar yields a number of papers by someone with a similar name, and a couple by this subject discussing his own work, but I don’t see anything third party about him at all. Mccapra (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as a scholar or GNG as far as I can tell. The page is also very promotional. --Mvqr (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless BIO can be improved to make notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fulbright alone is not enough for automatic notability, the only plausible form of notability is GNG, the sources listed in the article are non-independent (and mostly deadlinks), and searching did not turn up anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 27 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!} 07:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace gaming[edit]

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

Obscure, fails WP:GNG, cites no sources other than creator's paper DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTNEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:25, 27 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!} 07:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Kashyap[edit]

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

Fails to meets WP:JOURNALIST and I don't this they are notable, seem obviously promotion or advertising of subject. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Journalism. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; subject received notability in the situation of the arrest and trial, that's it. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 06:46, 25 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. CSD G7, the page creator has blanked this article twice. I will create a redirect as suggested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain Second Division[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, has minimal content, and has a contested draftification. A quick BEFORE has not turned up any sources outside of general databases (e.g., soccerway), which do not establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Bahrain. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Bahrain as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:13, 24 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!} 04:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company of Select Marksmen[edit]

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. Cursory search for sources include passing mentions in books dealing with the Revolutionary War Era but that does not indicate notability. Could not find any information either about the leader of the unit, Captain Alexander Fraser. The article has been without sources for 16 years, so I propose deletion unless new sources can be found. Tooncool64 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Wikipedia Library contains no coverage. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:50, 29 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. leaning Keep. We see articles like this so many times at AFD that I think an RFC might be useful to make these closures more decisive. Right now, I see no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Township, Jasper County, Missouri[edit]

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

Checking the maps, I see only roads and fields. It seems to be a trivial GNIS entry. I did not initiate PROD because the consensus on having such articles is not clear. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A township in Missouri is a sub-county organization. You won't find anything like a settlement for this on a map because it's essentially a governing body for unincorporated areas within the county. As of the 21st century they generally only serve a road maintenance purpose; I'm not sure if they did anything else in the past. Sometimes townships would have significant coverage, sometimes they won't; if there's not any coverage here I'd recommand a light merge to the county article; this is a somewhat different situation than the unincorporated community articles. Hog Farm _Talk 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: I found seven results in this book and a short paragraph here. Left guide (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And you didn't read a single one of them. None of the phrase matches in the first book are actually about Lincoln Township. They are all biographies of people in Jasper County: Harry T. Boyd, James Barnett Stemmons, Isaac E. Coplen, Jacob N. Bradbury, Joseph Powell, and Virgil C. Erwin. They use the township merely as an address here and there. Research isn't phrase matching with Google and counting the hits. Research is actually reading what search engines turn up.
  The genealogical society's transcription of the atlas is not very trustworthy, as the original did not say "paste in here" in the Joplin Lead Mines as that WWW page does. And we really cannot repeat 19th century fawning such as "fine farms" and "thrifty and industrious population" in Wikipedia. Furthermore since that 1876 history with the fawning subtracted amounts to not much has happened yet a history from a lot later than 1876 is clearly needed.
  Which there will not be. Missouri had optional township government in 1872, abolished just after that history was published, and then again in 1879 under its new 1875 constitution. Even by 1997 only 23 counties in Missouri had opted for any township government at all, which went down to 22 in 2001, and Jasper has not ever been one of them. For Jasper and the rest, Lincoln is just a survey rectangle.
  Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this from the 1880s but most of the chapter is about residents of the township, not the township itself. Everything else I can find is passing mentions, mainly statements that people lived in Lincoln Township. I think we're better off merging all township articles for this county to a new section at the Jasper County, Missouri article. Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated Question. Why is there articles for deletion if merge or redirect is possible for all articles. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because in some cases the content just shouldn't be covered anywhere, so outright deletion is better than trying to cram it somewhere that it doesn't belong. Hog Farm _Talk 23:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jasper county. This is a non legally recognized place because it has no government that represents the people who live there. Their legally recognized government is the Jasper county government. The article doesn't benefit from the presumed notability awarded to legally recognized places. Therefore, to be a stand alone article it needs to meet WP:GNG. In my opinion, It fails WP:GEOLAND because it lacks legal recognition. It fails WP:Sustained because the nominator and the commentors have demonstrated a lack of sustained coverage of the subject. It violates WP:NRV because "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,". Furthermore, even if you want to argue that it is legally recognized, it doesn't matter. "Presumed notability" is merely shortcut to allow unimpeded addition of articles that are clearly notable. The notability of these presumed notable articles can be challenged, and if shown to be failing WP:GNG, merged or deleted. No subject is automatically irrevocably notable. It's had seven years for someone to show material that it demonstrates notability, lets merge it now. Mergers are easily undone if any new evidence comes to light. Thank you to all those who worked to dig up material on this subject.James.folsom (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added US census bureau data. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From WP:GEOLAND itself:

Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.
बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a census tract or an area in an irrigation district; it is a township.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial to say something is not "another word describing it". As discussed above, Lincoln Township only exists for the purpose of road maintenance and census. Or in other words, it meets clearly census tract. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Uncle G it never even did road maintenance, either, though it takes some analysis of what he said.James.folsom (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well a census tract or an irrigation district is in no ways comparable to a township. Patapsco913 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People (Uncle G) have made the point earlier in the discussion, that this "township" is in fact very comparable to a census tract. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter it's already been made clear it doesn't have a government and never has had a government, and therefore is not legally recognized. More people reasonable would simply google this and see that it is true.James.folsom (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep The nominator’s stated reasoning for this AfD is nonsense, doesn’t pass the most cursory scrutiny, and is at odds with the first of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars:

“

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

”

Our thousands upon thousands of township articles are ubiquitous on en.Wikipedia and underly the very reason we have the categories Category:Townships in Jasper County, Missouri, and Category:Townships in Missouri. Note that the latter category (townships in just Missouri) must have thousands of townships listed.

The nom’s other rationale ( I see only roads and fields), is presumably the result of zooming in on a satellite view and is utter nonsense since Lincoln Township, like any other rural agricultural area with a population of 300, has farmers’ homes accompanying their fields. It’s not hard to see those homes if one cares to acknowledge what’s landing on their retinas (Google Map view, here). Lincoln Township is a run-of-the-mill township no more deserving of being expunged from Wikipedia than thousands of other townships in the US. Greg L (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in the USA, many states have townships. In some states such as New Jersey, they have important governmental functions and may employ 100s of police, teachers, etc. In other states such as North Carolina, they are historical vestiges with no modern purpose or structure. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a populated place. BD2412 T 17:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All standalone articles need to meet WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasoning stated by the nominator, that he "sees only roads and fields" might be true (that's what he sees) but what he sees isn't the true facts. Also the nominator failed to show why this township deserves to be treated any different than all the other articles we have on townships in Missouri. MLee1957 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those other townships, if not notable, should be merged into the county article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment supporting “keep” Merging into county-wide articles, James, is impractical beyond all comprehension and flies in the face of what makes Wikipedia useful and easy to locate the information one needs.

Missouri’s townships are civil and have legal standings defined by Missouri law. Moreover, Missouri has 1,378 townships apportioned amongst 114 counties.

Henpecking this article to death in hopes of sliding a Post-It note-sized policy change under the door would run afoul with WP:Consensus/Levels of Consensus, which states Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. A policy change to consolidate townships under their respective counties would require going to Village Pump and proposing such a sweeping idea. By I seriously doubt such a proposal will fly since no one would want to wade through stupendously large county articles; that’s the whole reason we have internal hyperlinks.

Without proper use of hyperlinks to break things up into bite-size portions, which benefits readers and rewards and motivates volunteer wikipedians who generally want to make a small dent in the multiverse, we would end up with “article elephantiasis” like “List of Fables characters”. With the attention spans of readers now approaching one Planck length, readers are increasingly disinterested in such articles. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a county subdivision; see minor civil division. These are not census tracts (as opposed to census county divisions, which are not notable as there is no legal recognition). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In minor civil division, it is written:

^Missouri - townships (mostly non-governing),
बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't a legally-recognized place. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:51, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another niche D&D setting, this one appears to be self-published by a game designer (Monte Cook) who frankly may merit his own AfD (but one thing at a time). The article does not even make clear what works the setting is composed of, outside am ambiguous section 'sources' listing three self-published books. 99% of the article is unreferenced plot summary (aka WP:FANCRUFT), reception is only 1%, and said reception is composed of the claim that "It has received good reviews" sourced to two unreliable fan-reviews at WP:SPS sites (RPGnet and slashdot...). The only suggestion of notability in the article is the claim that the work won an ENnie Award (actually, according to that list, it won 4 - out of ~2 two dozen categories). Not sure if this award (awards) is sufficient to keep this (nothing in the article about the award suggests it is particularly significant for the gaming scene), my BEFORE shows nothing else that we can use as a source, so if we were to enforce WP:V we would be left with a substub catalogue entry and a sentence on ENies. Perhaps WP:ATD-R to the designer? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won the Ennie award which is the top award in the roleplaying industry for product of the year. This alone makes it notable. I do agree the article could do with a bit of an overhaul though, howevre WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Canterbury Tail talk 04:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail "top award in the roleplaying industry" - according to whom? This claim is not even in our article about the awards. I'd be happy to accept it if you can find a RS for this claim (and I encourage you to add it to the article). Which was prodded just last year ([25]), hardly encouraging thinking this is a major award. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It actually won TWO Ennie awards, if you read the linked pdf. Slashdot and RPGnet are both longstanding sites (20+ years?) with editorial control, and the reviews are both posted by staff members, not random bloggers. So GNG is met--no objection to cleanup and expansion of the reception section, no objection to looking for and incorporating other coverage. I just don't see a good merge target: Monte Cook would be better than deletion, but that article needs to be buffed--the guy's been around the hobby since I started 40+ years ago, and worked on some major products. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping @VickKiang for 3O in the reliability of these, as he is experienced with them. However, Slashdot is a social news website where "Summaries of stories and links to news articles are submitted by Slashdot's own users". The article appears to be a blog ("Posted by Zonk"). Two RSN discusions do not suggest the site is seen as reliable (1, 2). Ditto for RPGnet: "users have contributed numerous reviews of board and card games.". It is considered unreliable by Board games WP (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Unreliable) and self-published in related RSN discussions: 1, 2. So right now I very much doubt we are meeting the requirement of being covered in-depth by reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users could submit anything to slashdot, but what got posted was decided by moderators. If Zonk posted it, Zonk was site staff at the time it was posted. Reviewing both sources, I don't see the discussion of other sources from those sites as normative: they read like RS'es, and I'm not accepting uncritically others' criticism of the sites. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of Ennie Award nominees and winners for 2007 can be found at https://ennie-awards.com/portfolio-item/2007-nominees-and-winners/ . Ptolus won four gold medals and an honorable mention. Guinness323 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It being Christmas Eve, it may take me a few days to overhaul this article, but so far I have found a full page review in Coleção Dragon Slayer; an interview with Cook about this setting in Polyhedron, a 3-page interview with Cook that delves into Ptolus in Coleção Dragão Brasil; references to the game in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons; a review in Inquest Gamer; another review in RPG Review; etc. Some of these will also be used in Cook's own wiki. Give me a few days to do the family thing and then I will get on this. Guinness323 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guinness323 Sounds good, i you think you can save this I don't mind withdrawing this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as noted, there are definitely enough sources to make this notable. Won't happen until later this week, though.Guinness323 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Can you close this as withdrawn/keep? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. BOZ (talk) 08:18, 25 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 Illithid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pharagos: The Battleground[edit]

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

This niche D&D setting seems to fail GNG badly, and it suffers from major WP:OR issues. I'd have prodded it but frankly I wonder if this is not an outright WP:HOAX as I cannot find any reliable source that even confirms this is a thing (three sources cited are not online and do not mention this in their heading). Assuming this is not a hoax, I am not sure if there is a possible redirect target (merge is unlikely to make sense, either, given a single footnoote). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never heard of it either, but it seems plausible but NN, rather than a hoax. It references real magazines; someone with access to the archives could check, but it's not clear what should be done with this. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is mention of Phargos here, so maybe not a hoax, but still would struggle to be notable. It is close to "thing someone made up one day" level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illithid. BOZ (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ Why? And merge what, exactly? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one paragraph that is sourced can be merged. BOZ (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also dispute this, since it appears to be fanmade lore and has nothing to do with official lore. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A second mention, it's real: [26] BOZ (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illithid based on the primary, non-fanmade sources found. Also appears, without much detail, in this The Gamer article. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 25 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 Carlisle, Iowa#Liberty and Dudley. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, Polk County, Iowa[edit]

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

Place is not notable enough and sources aren't reliable LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper probably was. But that doesn't matter as very clearly even from the source cited this is not a distinct subject. One can read all about "Uncle Jerry" in Carlisle, Iowa#History. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlisle,_Iowa#Liberty_and_Dudley, which currently covers this topic far better than this single-line stub. While the ghost town of Dudley is notable, and discussion of it is extensive in history books, there's no need for a separate article when it's already covered in a cited article elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >> Carlisle,_Iowa#Liberty_and_Dudley Per Firsfron Djflem (talk) 18:18, 25 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) 02:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tetouan Archaeological Museum[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. My BEFORE search (in English) didn't show much outside of tourism websites. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Morocco. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Archaeology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve added the interlanguage link, some new material and seven refs. There are plenty more and I haven’t even looked in Arabic yet. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - loads of sources in the appropriate languages, as added. Ingratis (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Narky Blert (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mccapra and Ingratis.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reliable sources have been provided for the article, and you have the final decision whether to leave it or delete it. You are the ones with experience. Thank you Trabeltomed (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable museum with several good sources, even if they aren’t in English. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 02:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was only 2 hours old when nominated. I would have WP:BOLDly kept per consensus, but I think attention still needs to be directed at the language of the article. Puffy claims such as "its historical legacy extends back more than a century" should be substantiated. Also, "The Tetouan Museum includes a collection of archaeological and historical pieces dating back to various time periods": which museum doesn't? The article should also be moved to spell its name Tétouan. Geschichte (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 06:51, 25 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Holly Lodge Girls' College[edit]

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

The entry fails WP:NSCHOOL. All but one of the sources in the current article are not independent of the subject. Furthermore, a WP:BEFORE search was composed mainly of one local publication, the Liverpool Echo, which doesn't look particularly reliable and does not demonstrate it deserving more notability than any other local school in the area. If reliable sources are found, please ping me. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have re-worked article and added sources. Note that it is referred to by several names - Holly Lodge Girls' School, Holly Lodge Secondary High School for Girls, Holly Lodge School, Holly Lodge Comprehensive, Holly Lodge Girls' College, Holly Lodge Grammar School, Holly Lodge Girls' Grammar School. It has a couple of notable former pupils and a notable head. It was part of the Militant-influenced school reorganisation of the 1980s, with its closure or merging squashed by Keith Joseph. This history and the influence of the school on the area over the 100+ years it has existed has in my view led to enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I also think there will be coverage in offline published sources - biographies and memoirs. Tacyarg (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY. Tacyarg has added information and a very large number of sources, and the page is considerably improved. Having said that, I would caution that these sources all appear to be primary (see: WP:PRIMARYNEWS) and much of the information is arguably trivial. This is not a clear GNG pass by any means. However it is a secondary school that has been in existence since 1922, serves a community with an enrolment close to 1,000. It seems likely that a school of that size and that age is notable. I presume Tacyarg is not done yet, and I think this one crosses the line. If it doesn't, there are probably a lot of secondary schools that need deleting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, my keep edit conflicted with Tacyarg. I agree that the the militant-influenced reorganisation is likely to take this one clearly over the line. There must surely be secondary sources about that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with both editors that the sources are sufficient and note that I disagree with Sirfurboy re: whether news reports can be counted as secondary (I believe that a news report from reliable publications which isn't a first-hand account is a secondary source). Either way, there's little question this meets NSCHOOL. DCsansei (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For guidance on news reports being primary sources, please refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS and the policy in WP:PRIMARY (especially note d). I cannot see any news report on this page that is not a primary source. can you? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 30 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!} 03:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Vampy[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE show nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect to Brooke Lewis Bellas if a consensus exists, a bold redirect would almost certainly be rv'd. Strongly oppose drafting after looking at author's talk page User talk:Ricktheelectric. // Timothy :: talk 00:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NTVSERIES, no relevant sources other than mentions on Google. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 06:56, 25 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 Al-Okhdood Club. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Okhdood Club Stadium[edit]

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

Defunct stadium in Saudi Arabia. No sign of meeting GNG. Andre🚐 00:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 00:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Defunct? From everything indicated it looks like it's still a live and open stadium. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Maps address shows that it permanently closed. [27] Andre🚐 07:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google's open/closed notifications are user generated, either by the store or by users who may do so as a prank. I wouldn't call that reliable at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line being there's very little reliable about this stadium, and it's difficult to source a whole article at all. Whether the stadium is defunct or not is somewhat immaterial to that, but I'm just explaining why it appeared to be defunct, perhaps explaining why there is so little about it. I would not attempt to insert this Google Map entry into the article, but I have no reason to believe it's inaccurate either. Andre🚐 20:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Al-Okhdood Club as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me Andre🚐 20:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:19, 26 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. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable radio drama, fails GNG. Only 45 google results that I can find. Some are just Audible.com etc. Previous deleted as a soft delete expired prod. Andre🚐 00:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and India. Andre🚐 00:39, 24 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) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be With You (JD Allan song)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Only possible redirect is to another AfD JD Allan, so a redirect is only possible if this is kept. // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was planning to nominate as CSD A9 if that AfD is closed as delete. Fermiboson (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no additional coverage or evidence of notability for this single or for JD Allan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing anything to suggest that this song has anything like the sort of notability that would justify it having an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. I looked for a possible redirect target, but JD Allan doesn't have an article. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 27 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!} 03:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Potestio[edit]

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

Article without any references, no independent sources could be found. Does not meet notability criteria. Broc (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Broc (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability not found for WP:Prof. Will have to be found elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found four reviews of four books, one each: doi:10.1353/ces.2011.0014, ProQuest 215637942, ProQuest 1293141411, JSTOR 25143307. But the first three are all in the same journal and the last two are of edited works, so really for his authored works we have one review each of two books, both in the same journal. This falls a little short of WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 27 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 Yolo County, California as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronda, California[edit]

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

Back to the California bulk-creations. No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=b1e243f82f9d569792e98834cc4986b5 Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable railroad waypoint, no evidence this was ever a settlement of any kind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a 1913 tourist guide telling us that these (Ronda, Zamora, Brentona) were all railroad stops for local farmers. The difference is that there's a Zamora Historical Research Society that appears to have written a little bit about Zamora/Black's Station. ☺ (Our article is sourced to "Mast family" at one point, though.) Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zamora has its own exit from I5 and a couple of businesses, whereas (for what it's worth) I had never heard of Ronda until today, despite having grown up in the area. It disappeared from maps in 1915 and even then had no buildings in USGS topos....this is a no-brainer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Yolo county California article. WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Ronda, must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Ronda fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED, I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Ronda fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it. I'm willing to do the merge, but let me know as I might not be paying attention. James.folsom (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yolo County, California: per above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:43, 30 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) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frateschi[edit]

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

This article on a model railroad company has no sources. Running the name of the company through Google News results in a handful of references to an unrelated company. Wolfson5 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything in English in a WP:BEFORE, and the only stuff I could find in Portuguese/Brazil are passing mentions that the model trains made by the company were used in some local model train shows [28] [29]. Other than that, couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a contested prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only model railway manufacturer in Latin America, has been going for 65 years and the article on Portuguese Wikipedia is more substantial. Plenty of Google hits if you search under the Portuguese name. I think this passes the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. I found additional coverage in the US specialty magazine Model Railroad News. gidonb (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and gidonb. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 29 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) 02:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Belly Project[edit]

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

Declined prod. Only a handful of gnews hits and mostly from local press as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Universal nut sheller: Organization seems to fail WP:ORG. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't have time to look into this now, but I deprodded it because there are ~155 hits in Proquest for the quoted term, at least some of which looked to provide significant coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Innumerable high quality sources on gnews alone. I added three, sufficient to show that it satisfies GNG, let alone NORG. These are world-wide sources, not just local, not just regional. All are SIGCOV. Also see this google scholar search.Central and Adams (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 16 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, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 24 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) 02:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Doshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. Charlie (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Manish meets the ANYBIO due to the following reasons:

He received a National Award from the Government of India through President Ram Nath Kovind and the Champions of Change Award from the Telangana state for his work in cardiovascular innovations and drug delivery devices.
He is a pioneer in developing the world's first sirolimus-drug coated balloon named MagicTouch, which has earned him widespread recognition and accolades. The media, both nationally and internationally, has extensively discussed this.
The product was granted the Breakthrough Device designation and IDE approvals from the USFDA for treating superficial femoral arteries (SFA).[30] Extensively studied globally in various clinical trials, such as the Eastbourne registry, Nanolute, and ongoing trials like Transform 1, Transform 2, Ginger, Titan, and Hybrid Bifurcation DEB.
Dr. Martin Leon, founder of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and leads the IDE trials, said that the "FDA approval for the MAGICAL-SV clinical trial using the MagicTouch sirolimus-covered balloon with nanolute technology is a significant milestone in their ongoing effort to find the best therapy for managing patients with small vessel coronary obstructive disease."[31]
the company received a substantial $60 million funding from Kiran C Patel, a renowned cardiologist and businessman, specifically for conducting clinical studies on cardiac devices.[32]
MagicTouch is currently the only globally approved sirolimus-coated balloon with CE certification and with extensive commercial usage in Europe, major markets of Asia and the Mid-Eastern markets. More than 100 thousand patients have been treated with MagicTouch SCB in these markets.[33]
It is the most extensively studied sirolimus-coated balloon for peripheral artery disease (PAD) treatment and is the focus of ongoing clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Brazil.[34][35]

so meets criterion 1 & 2 of ANYBIO.VikingsKhan (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable award .. fails in basic criteria Worldiswide (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) - a suspected sockpuppet of Wiki97828. Charlie (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldiswide: Wait, so you're saying that receiving a National Award from the Government of India, presented by former President Ram Nath Kovind, and being honored with the 'Champions of Change Award Telangana' by Telangana Governor are not noteworthy achievements? Seriously? Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? VikingsKhan (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @VikingsKhan I don't understand why citations related to a product which is yet to receive full FDA approval are used for a bio page. Also, I am unsure if the company or the person won the presidential award. The citations you are using for the justification (of notability) seem to be the same for another similar AfD discussion. Charlie (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourced to press relesaes and pirmary sources. My search only brings up further press releases. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Device might be notable, he likely isn't. Being FDA certified isn't notable, it's needed to sell medical items in the USA. The award could be notable, but there are no sources outside of press releases about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Oaktree b:, the individual has received several noteworthy awards such as Champions of Change, a national award by the Government of India, an Honorary Doctorate, Marico Innovation Foundation's Innovation for India Award. These awards were given for his pioneering work in nanotechnology-based drug delivery for cardiovascular devices. Here are sources to verify these awards 1 2, 3. With these awards, the individual meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times).

He is widely recognized for developing the world’s first Sirolimus Coated Balloon as well as a Sirolimus Eluting Stent, known as MagicTouch, used for the treatment of DM and AMI. MagicTouch is the only globally approved sirolimus-drug-coated balloon with CE certification, widely used in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It holds the exclusive Breakthrough Device designation from the USFDA. Moreover, Dr. Martin Leon, founder of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and leads the IDE trials, said "FDA approval for the MAGICAL-SV clinical trial using the MagicTouch sirolimus-covered balloon with nanolute technology is a significant milestone in their ongoing effort to find the best therapy for managing patients with small vessel coronary obstructive disease."5. The company reportedly holds more than 100 patents for its technology and products globally and is the only company currently with the most clinically studied Sirolimus-coated balloon with long follow-up in Coronary and Peripheral. it received the National Technology Award from the Indian Government. An article in Outlook Business 6, provides detailed coverage of Dr. Doshi and MagicTouch. These achievements highlight the individual's notable contributions to the medical sector, meeting the WP:ANYBIO's second criterion (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field). VikingsKhan (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the device is likely notable, he doesn't appear to be. The awards are fine, but we have little sourcing about them. The first one you've shared is fine, the second I can't open, the third is a press-release. Even above you continually mention how notable the device is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The second link is an Indian-based website and may not be accessible in your country. However, any editors from India would be able to open it up. I have added an archived version of the same website here, and maybe you will be able to access it to verify the Champions of Change award that this person won. VikingsKhan (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject got Champions of Change (award) and also got other awards, i hopefully say that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO as it has the guideline “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.” — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 20:30, 20 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, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 24 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 Constable#India & Kerala Police. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Police Officer[edit]

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

Fails WP:CFORK. Mentioned in Constable#India. CPO and Constable are the same, difference is only in the name. CPO is the designation/post name of cops in the rank of constable in Kerala state. Similarly, in Kerala, the Superintendent of Police (SP) ranking officer holding the post of head of a police district is designated as District Police Chief (DPC), while in other states the post is synonymous with the rank itself, the Director General of Police (DGP) is also designated as State Police Chief (SPC).

As per this 2011 Kerala govt circular, the designation of members of Kerala Civil Police Officers of the rank of Constable serving in the District Police is changed as "Civil Police Officer" and those of the rank of Head Constable serving in the District Police is changed as "Senior Civil Police Officer".

As per another circular (H), Any person appointed in the ranks of Constable and Head Constable in the KCP will, while working in District Police, be designated Civil Police Officer and Senior Civil Police Officer respectively.

Additionally, the article is also largely based on WP:OR, with scarce WP:SIGCOV on the internet. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil Police Officer article should not be deleted from the Wikipedia article because the Constable rank, colloquially known as CPO, is prevalent in the latest movies, articles, and news. There is confusion among non-Keralites regarding CPO or Civil Police Officer, and this article helps primarily non-Keralites. In popular culture, the term CPO is more commonly used, making it relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia and should not be deleted. Many people conduct Google searches for information about CPO, and the article is very helpful in that regard.Lastly, the Civil Police Officer is distinct from other state police forces, and it is more standard and modern than colonial terms. For your information, the Kerala Public Service Commission also uses Civil Police Officer (CPO) in their recruitment notifications. There are various ranks in the force, such as armed police constable, police constable (telecommunication), police constable (commando), etc. The Government of Kerala also uses the term Civil Police Officer. Therefore, please consider not deleting this article.Thank you.The Civil Police Officer article should not be deleted from wiki article, because the Constable rank colloquialy known as CPO. In latest movies, articles, news the Civil Police Officer is more prevalent. There are confusions to non-keralites on CPO or Civil Police Officer. So this article will helps mainly non keralites. In Popular culture, the term CPO is more used. So this should be on Wikipedia and should not be deleted. There are so many Google search for information about CPO. It is very helpful those. Lastly the Civil Police Officer distinct from other state police forces and it's is more standard and modern than colonial terms. For your information, the Kerala public service commision also uses Civil Police Officer (CPO) in their recruitment notification. There are various ranks in the force like armed police constable, police constable (telecommunication), police constable (commando), etc. the government of kerala also uses Civil Police Officer. So please consider, not to delete this article.

1) [36], CPO notification

2) [37] CPO notification by PSC

3) [38] Police Constable (Armed Police) notification

Pls check, this is a recruitment notification for Police Constable (Mounted Police),

Thank you. 2409:4073:2010:DE72:0:0:266F:F0B0 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even a Police Constable posted as a Civil Police Officer in District Police (Local Police) is officially known as a Civil Police Officer throughout their entire career. Just look at units like State Crime Branch (CB-CID), State Special Branch, State Crime Records Bureau, Headquarters, Coastal Police, Railway Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), etc. In these units, they are recognized as Civil Police Officers and Senior Civil Police Officers, not Constables and Head Constables. So, during their service term, they are officially designated as CPO and Sr. CPO, not PC and HC. Therefore, it should be treated as a rank and a post."

So it doesn't"Even a Police Constable posted as a Civil Police Officer in District Police (Local Police) is officially known as a Civil Police Officer throughout their entire career. Just look at units like State Crime Branch (CB-CID), State Special Branch, State Crime Records Bureau, Headquarters, Coastal Police, Railway Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), etc. In these units, they are recognized as Civil Police Officers and Senior Civil Police Officers, not Constables and Head Constables. So, during their service term, they are officially designated as CPO and Sr. CPO, not PC and HC. Therefore, it should be treated as a rank and a post." 2409:4073:2010:DE72:0:0:266F:F0B0 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Constable#India and Kerala Police as appropriate. No need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Necrothesp. Giant Snowman 15:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems ok, I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Necrothesp would indeed be the best course of action regarding this page. TH1980 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recieved a message on my talk page asking me to particpate here. I don't think it constitutes canvassing, as it was neutrally-worded and seems to have been sent indiscriminately to established ppl, but worth noting. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 16:17, 29 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!} 03:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter, California[edit]

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

Location that does not appear to be notable. Article was PRODded in 2020, but PROD was declined on the basis that the place is listed as "populated" by the USGS; as far as I can tell it was never brought to AfD for discussion. I can't find anything about this site other than passing mentions in mining, water resources, and forestry reports (same when I search for the name "Philadelphia Diggings", which may have been an early name for the site). This book: [39] might possibly have something, but it may be a work of fiction (I can't access the book to be sure). Without any solid evidence this was actually a populated place, it fails our criteria for notability of locations, and without significant coverage it fails WP:GNG. Probably this was just a non-notable mine. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further searching I note the name "Jupiter" did not appear on any USGS topographic map until 1948 (Columbia, CA, 1:62500)[40]; earlier maps show nothing at the site.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the Internet Archive, I searched for the From the Backwoods of Old Tuolumne by Russell C. Grigsby, publsihed by Grigsby, 1943, the book mentioned by WeirdNAnnoyed. All I could find was a very short, scathing review of it that states, impart : It is not history-.... Being self-published (privately printed) disqualifies it from consideration as a source. Paul H. (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can point to Philadelphia Diggings in Tuolumne in an 1894 California State Geologist report. So that's definitely documented, although not nearly in depth enough for a standalone article. Hydraulic mining started in 1901 by the Stockton Gravel Mining Company, apparently, according to a contemporary trade magazine. Both Miller and the Guddes say that Jupiter is the Philadelphia Diggings. The water surveys are documenting Knights Creek and Eagle Creek, and don't even say what "Jupiter" is. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches, and especially the searches above lead me to the conclusion that this was just a mine, and any unincorporated community was the miners. Even accepting such existed, and that the community briefly mustered a post office , it would have no presumed notability per GEOLAND, and we would need sources to meet WP:GNG per nom. None found so it does not pass GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Jupiter must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Jupiter fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED, I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Jupiter fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it, but this appears to not be or never was a populated place so nothing to merge.James.folsom (talk) 02:00, 26 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 for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Warner Bros. Discovery-Paramount merger[edit]

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

Far too soon to warrant its own article. Title is a misnomer: neither company has officially proposed a merger, and now Zaslav is walking back or downplaying the gravitas of his talks with Paramount (source). All the information in this stub already comfortably resides in both the Paramount Global and WBD articles. Should be redirected, drafitied, or deleted. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:44, 23 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Business, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've also removed the details of this from WBD and Paramount Global because as it is right now, this is all unconfirmed business gossip and will remain so until the new year. We're not the Yahoo Finance boards or Reddit, and only confirmed information about any deal should be listed here, not to mention that any deal certainly won't be a clean merger due to anti-trust concerns, adding other companies to the mix. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that it is far too soon for its article, it's just proposed and hasn't happened yet LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, it's merely a possibility. There isn't nearly enough traction to justify an article. Rickraptor707 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON right now, arguably is also a failure of WP:NOTNEWS. User:Let'srun 20:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it is merely speculation, it isn't uncommon for events that didn't occur to have their own page, an example being the page for Bojinka plot. It helps let people understand what has potential to occur. User:HaskeyM 20:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope We're not going to compare the plan for a terrorist attack to an unconfirmed media merger. Are you absolutely kidding me?! Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Nate on this one, you cannot be comparing a proposed merger to a planned terrorist attack. The terrorist attack deserves a page since it is notable, a planned merger than isn't official is not notable. For example, the planned Six Flags-Cedar Fair merger does not have a page LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the merger doesn't happen at all, then there'll be no point in having this article at all. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:C581:AD0A:548A:A2BA (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON right now its all just WP:SPECULATION. If this merger actually happens then it might pass GNG but right now its just rumours. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:30, 27 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) 02:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Baker (author)[edit]

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

The article was mostly written by the author himself and has no references. I could not find any mention of him in independent sources. It does not meet the criteria for notability, IMHO. Broc (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything substantial about him, and so there is no indication of him passing WP:NAUTHOR. If anyone can find some sources about him, please ping me. KangarooGymnast (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The novels are documented in ISBN 9781844680269 in the entries for Stone Lewis and Sam Turner. However, I have found no independent sources for the author's life, nor a second source covering the novels. There are supposedly some contemporary book reviews, hinted at elsewhere, but the back catalogue search engine for the publication that supposedly published the book reviews turns up zero results. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 24 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.