< November 09	November 11 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udom Jokrob[edit]

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

A BLP sourced only to a permanently dead link. No indication of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. My own Thai searches led me to Blog Gang, however, this is only a passing mention followed by an image caption. In addition, this seems to be WP:USERGENERATED so would not meet WP:RS standards anyway. There are more blog posts by the same user here and here that also mention Jokrob in passing but, in any case, even if this were an acceptable source, we would need the coverage to be significant and addressing Jokrob in detail, which isn't the case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:36, 3 November 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!} 22:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is primary and dead, I searched for Udom Jokrob and อุดม จอกรบ, I tried Udom Chokrob thinking this might be an alt, but BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 22:56, 13 November 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!} 03:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Waste Association of North America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was a 2021 keep, but the sourcing identified does not appear to meet WP:ORG level depth and independence required. Note, the reason it appears to be an A7 is CV, which was addressed. The issue is the lack of sourcing upon which to build an article. Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable since it doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. All of the SIGCOV is by publications named "Waste News 360" or similar. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already made a trip to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:ORG due to a lack of needed sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:52, 11 November 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) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bassel al-Assad Stadium[edit]

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

There are only two articles in this disambiguation. The disambiguation should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Toptanazikov (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations. Toptanazikov (talk) 06:22, 20 October 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 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: neither has been identified as the Primary Topic, and page views don't show a massive difference. PamD 07:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could make Bassel al-Assad Stadium (Homs) primary and add a hatnote. The Homs article had a lot more traffic in the past and still has a little more. Flurrious (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 November 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 1 Atlantic Square. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 Atlantic Square[edit]

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

Contested prod. Appears to be a WP:MILL office building with no individual notability. Sources have been provided since prod but only confirms that it will have corporate clients and a restaurant, which is no different to countless other such premises in every city IMO. Smaller counterpart to 1 Atlantic Square (which does have media coverage due to height and tenancy so appears to meet WP:GNG), see no reason this smaller building cannot simply be mentioned in that article as part of the project. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is many office building everywhere. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:33, 9 November 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!} 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I base this on the Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture. GA does not require notability, but has their own criteria: Well-written, no OR, Broad, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated . I'm just saying that if GA might accept this by its own review, then I don't feel comfortable deleting this fairly new article based on "no individual notability". That's a bit of opposite POVs here, and I find this article interesting. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment you could a very detail good article about yourself but it will be removed because of lack of notability rules. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia requires notability. Crowsus (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Whether an article is well written has no bearing on whether it should be kept at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_(baseball)_(2nd_nomination) for example, which was a featured article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. The closer just said "merge". This does not mean anything regarding consensus. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Not really enough here for independent notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I saw this as a prod and didn't contest, it seems borderline G11 to me (not the most deletionist of editors), because the coverage is mainly primary and in the absence of indept secondary coverage, the depth of detail feels promotional. Would not object to a slender merge in the sense of retitling 1 Atlantic Square to include and namecheck no 2, but not including this depth of coverage based on primary sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a very interesting building indeed and I feel it'd be a shame to lose the article as a source of info about it. Failing that, Redirect; either way it has to stay. and that rhymed so you know its true_ : ) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 21:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Get the impression this is an advert with its lead including "flagship development" cited from a marketer of the office space and the citing of worlds (sic) most "prestigious" companies. Sources mainly PRIMARY or from connected parties and thus not independent. The GlasgowLive source is about both nos. 1 & 2 Atlantic Square, which lends support to the two being treated in one article. Doesn't seem independently notable on sourcing under GNG. The buildings are similar with their retained facade and construction; no need for a separate article for this one. Rupples (talk) 11:33, 17 November 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 Jam City (company). Daniel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Yguado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources used as references are either rewrites of press releases, profile listings, or tangential to the subject. I am of the opinion that this article does not pass WP:GNG. This article was also WP:BLAR-ed for a similar reasoning but subsequently reverted. – robertsky (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Technology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to Jam City (company). WP:NOTLINKEDIN and this is just a professional profile, with no indication of notability present in the article, regional businessperson award notwithstanding. —siro χ o 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Josh Yguado is the main subject of several articles (good independent sources) I've just added to the page. While I'm not sure that this article will expand beyond a stub format, I do see the subject's noteworthiness. The awards are usually notwithstanding, so not terrible not great that some award is there and it may be removed from the page. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good attempt, but in my opinion, the sources that you have added here are not of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Other than Bloomberg, which I don't have access to and therefore unable to make a proper evaluation (however, from the opening paragraph, I do not think there will be sigcov about the subject. do let me know if I am wrong), the rest are about JamCity or post-myspace business activities in general. Nothing specific about the subject. – robertsky (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cause he is a significant figure in the tech industry, co-founder and CEO of Jam City, and an investor in the professional esports company Cloud9. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodgers V are any sources (independent, reliable sources that are of significant coverage of the person) that can be used in the article? – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City (company) - Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The news story about him being named CEO seems to be the only significant thing written about him. The sources added by User:VertyBerty are not significant coverage in my opinion. --Mika1h (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep te subject's role as co-founder and CEO of Jam City, as well as an investor in Cloud9, establishes his significance in the tech and gaming industries. The depth of coverage in existing sources has been questioned; however, the criteria for notability require significant coverage, which reflects his impact, not exhaustive coverage. The potential for the article to be expanded with additional information over time, as the industries evolve, makes me think that this is the reason why there is no consensus for the page's removal. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep leaning towards keep due to the businessman's founding experience with Jam City and Cloud9, coupled with the minimal yet non-trivial media coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, noting that this is a stub article which I believe sets the bar for SIGCOV lower than if it was on its way to being featured article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City. Marginally notable at best. Possible COI issues.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., Jam City or Jam City (company)? Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cabayi: thanks for asking. Jam City (company)

—-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City. I don't think the sources demonstrate significant coverage here; aside from the source directly about his connection to Jam City, most of the citations are not about him directly (the Forbes article, for example, is about ex-MySpace executive DeWolfe, and Yguado is mentioned in a sentence of context for a quote he offered.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, Jam City or Jam City (company)? Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jam City (company), sorry for not disambiguating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 15 November 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 Skal vi danse?. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skal vi danse? (season 4)[edit]

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

Incomplete data; no evidence of notability. I have already carried over any useful information to the Skal vi danse? main article. There is no reason to maintain these standalone season articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Also delete the following for same reasons as stated above. Any useful tables have been carried over to the Skal vi danse? main article.

Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the necessary merge has already been done. (Thanks, Bgsu98).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this include:

Dream Focus 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still working on that project and didn’t want to delete anything until I can carry the relevant tables over to the main article. I can try and do that today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skal vi danse? as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only properly sourced content to Skal vi danse? // Timothy :: talk 11:10, 18 November 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 Skal vi danse?. Daniel (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skal vi danse? participants[edit]

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

No context provided, no sources provided, and no information gleaned. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Skal vi danse? as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 13 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name, Age and Occupation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF which states that films which were not released, even if shooting had commenced, should generally not have their own article. There is no indication this production or it's cancellation was particularly notable, either at the time or with the passage of time. Contested PROD; no clear merit offered in a redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I deproDed the page (same nominator, see TP (indicating in my edit summary that given the state of the page and its content, even with no effort to look for further sources, a redirect should at least have been considered). I find both actions quite hasty to be honest (see page history). Most of all, this film has received considerable coverage. I had added some, some was on the page already, and plenty of other sources exist and are available in one click. As for the guideline referred to by the nominator and what it says about unfinished films, well, let's have a look: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Number of independent reliable books extensively deal with the failure of this production (add Lorentz in the Google Books search and try....). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Thank you for your detailed rationale. Respectfully, at this moment I am not aligned with your position and refer back to WP:NFF which stipulates that the cancellation of the specific film would itself have to be notable to warrant an article. From my own searches of this, I could indeed see plenty of sources discussing that the film had undergone a period of shooting and that it did indeed, for at least a period of time, WP:EXIST. Whether that be backed up by 5 sources or 500 is inconsequential, as I have yet to determine a sufficient number to discuss this particular feature's cancellation specifically, by way of WP:SIGCOV. One of the citations offered, a book by Robert Ryan, notes: "after having gone way over budget with 90 days of shooting and nothing to show for the effort, RKO decided to shelve the unfinished film". The cancellation seems to be like it was simply a matter of costing too much, at a time when finances were stretched due to the matter of a world war. If you, or others, can find sufficient sources that cover the specifics of this film's cancellation, to a significant enough extent, that may help formulate the opinions of others, and indeed myself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Please take the time to read the sources in the page at least, if you don't have time to read all the other that are available online (again add Lorentz to the Google books search), it is not only a matter of money and the page clearly says so. Haven't you read the latest version before taking it to Afd? (the 5 minute time span between my last edit adding those sources and your nomination, would make me think that is the case, but you can take your time and read it now) There were various issues: for example Lorentz was unable to cope with the schedule and requirements of a commercial feature film, Ryan had doubts about Lorentz who had so far only filmed documentaries.... It's in the page and it's sourced. Sources do not only mention 90 days of shooting and financial issues! I'm leaving it at that for the moment, Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second this and thank Mushy Yank for his outstanding work in improving this page. It was the only dramatic feature of Pare Lorentz, a major filmmaker. The movie also started the career of actor Robert Ryan. Britfilm (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEY applies. Article has been vastly improved and multiple reliable sources have been provided. DonaldD23 talk to me 07:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the improved article now passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 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 23:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vella Tomlin[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and highly advertorialized ("Mark was as happy discussing world politics with the likes of Jimmy Carter...as he was with encouraging his many close friends, all around the world") biography of an aviator with no strong or properly sourced indication of passing our notability criteria for aviators. The strongest attempt at a notability claim is that he had a role as a stunt flyer in a film, but that's sourced only to IMDb rather than any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about that work -- and otherwise, the sourcing consists of a short blurb in which he's named only as the winner of a hamper in a contest, and a piece which is just an op-ed replying to points in his own earlier op-ed, neither of which are GNG builders.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim, supported by much, much better sourcing, than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Malta. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Envo Drive Systems[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Of the sources cited and other sources I could find through searches, none meet CORPDEPTH because they are routine news stories. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation from CanadianSME meets CORPDEPTH in my opinion. It is in depth detail of the company, not a sponsored post, and organization is an independent third party. In addition to that there are more than 100 mentions of "ENVO" on different news, industry magazines. Wikipedia readers in general would be helped with this page. Haseeblog (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is also an interview with the company founder. Having more than 100 mentions in news or industry magazines (which are looked upon with skepticism per WP:ORGIND) does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another un-sponsored in-depth published content featuring ENVO. Fully charged is a popular UK based media company. https://fullycharged.show/episodes/envo-small-electric-traffic-beating-vehicles-for-every-occasion/ Haseeblog (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combination of a product review and an interview with the company's founder. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Notability page "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."

evaluation of product, hence, review is considered. Is the interview the only problem left?

If so, here are review of the product produced by the company

https://electrek.co/2023/07/25/envo-stax-almost-perfect-ebike-looks-like-regular-bike/

https://electrek.co/2023/08/30/envo-electric-atv-towing-off-road/ Haseeblog (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're potentially conflating two separate things here. NCORP provides guidelines on organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services which is why that sentence mentions "evaluation of a product" which would apply if this topic was a product. But it isn't, it is a commercial company so therefore the review of the product won't assist in establishing notability for the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:PRODUCTREV. There's no indication that the reviews cited here are from reliable sources or that those sources are sufficiently independent (indeed, electrek.co uses sponsored links and invests in green energy companies per their about page) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The affiliate links are for other brands such as "ENVO". Infact you may notice even on the covering blog of ENVO Stax there was a affiliate link to RadPower, indicating all the views expressed for ENVO were unbiased (and for the sake of review).

Here is another review from DesignBoom: https://www.designboom.com/design/envo-snowbike-electric-12-01-2020/ Haseeblog (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DesignBoom review does not meet #1 of PRODUCTREV. There is no indication that the reviewer "has personally experienced or tested the product" nor does the review "describe[] their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only in-depth source is an interview with the founder. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the CORPDEPTH check does this article fail? Haseeblog (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at the "Independent Content" part of WP:ORGIND first. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from CanadianSME meets CORPDEPTH in my opinion. It is in depth detail of the company, not a sponsored post, and organization is an independent third party. In addition to that there are more than 100 mentions of "ENVO" on different news, industry magazines. Wikipedia readers in general would be helped with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseeblog (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Canadian SME says about itself:

"With an aim to contribute to the development of Canada’s Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s), Cmarketing Inc is a potential marketing agency and a boutique business management company progressing rapidly in its scope. By acknowledging a firm reliance of the Canadian economy over its SMEs, the agency has resolved to launch a magazine, the pure focus of which will be the furtherance of Canadian SMEs, and to assist their progress with the scheduled token of enlightenment via the magazine’s pertinent content."

Here's what our notability guideline for companies says about interviews:

"A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:
- "memoirs or interviews by executives"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable spam article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useful in EBSCO, ProQuest or Gale either. Best we can do is a redirect to the company Velometro Mobility (§ History). I don't think a "delete and redirect" is necessary, but it's not like there's much in the article currently. The article isn't spammy IMO, it's just that there's nothing to write here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Candian SME article does NOT meet CORPDEPTH. It is an interview and the intro is so promotional in tone I would believe that the subject of the article supplied that information to include with it. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a article from CleanTechnica that may be of interest. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/17/eco-innovation-on-wheels-meet-the-micromobility-design-contest-visionaries/ Haseeblog (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it would be considered reliable based on this discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The competition was sponsored and organized by Envo Drive Systems is right there - fails ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability (ORGIND/CORPDEPTH). HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of notability BoraVoro (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not up to WP:ORGDEPTH standard/not independent. Rupples (talk) 15:56, 17 November 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 Carles Puigdemont. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Carles Puigdemont in Italy[edit]

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

Page length does not justify being anything but a small section on Carles Puigdemont and page subject does not establish notability or lasting impact. He was arrested on 23 September and freed without charge the next day, WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a seriously large case like the charges against Donald Trump. The Catalan Wikipedia article is long, but is mainly a turgid minute-by-minute of the filing of a legal case, which again is one which resulted in one night in jail and no charges. As for wider sources of lasting impact, the Catalan website Vila Web's tab on the case jumps from December 2021 when Vox tried to sue to keep Puigdemont in jail, to March 2023 when the stale case was officially closed. [1] The wider topic of the warrant against Puigdemont and the hypothetical legal basis for his home of Belgium or Italy to arrest and deport him is a subject for an enyclopedia, not this non-event Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carles Puigdemont per nom. Even if we were to have a more detailed about the prosecution against him, we probably wouldn't want or need an article just about this arrest, but rather we might have an article about the entire case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carles Puigdemont and strip out some of the detail.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No need whatsoever for a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 14 November 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Hodgson[edit]

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

Recently restored PROD, but I agree with the original reason: Fails the soccer and general notability criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Football, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the reason the article was restored? That could give a good start for this discussion. Pinging @Primefac: who refunded the article. --SuperJew (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone asked? Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac! Yes, I assumed it was a request by someone, but wasn't sure who or how to find it (previous cases I've seen have linked the request in the refund edit summary). I thought that there needs to be a stronger reason to undelete an article, but if I understand correctly, that would be only for an article which had gone through AfD and would then need a full undeletion review. --SuperJew (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, which is why I mentioned the PROD, as that allows just a simple request for restoration. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Captains a club for which she has made almost 100 apperances in Australia's (11th place world ranking) professional highest level league. Has also played 78 games in US (3rd place world ranking) college system (the most notable college system in the world). Also this and this are great sources discussing her and her career at length which satisfy WP:SIGCOV. --SuperJew (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First source possibly not independent, second source is good - anything else? I noticed the number of apps and so I'm looking for reasons to keep tbh... Giant Snowman 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you reckon FIFPRO isn't independent? It's a worldwide representative organisation for professional footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't a representative body independent? Perhaps because they are representative? TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not of her directly, but of the PFA. --SuperJew (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's no different to an article by FIFA/her team etc. Giant Snowman 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this source makes a few passing mentions. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. FIFPRO isn't independent of it's members. The article contains zero independent coverage and is just a lengthy quote from her. Beyond90 contains 3 lines specifically on Hodgson. Dougal18 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. This Adelaide Now article contains a few sentences about her so that, with the Beyond90 article, seem to be the best sources that anyone has found thus far. I feel that it's one good source away from GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is anyone able to access this Adelaide Now source? Does it contain SIGCOV? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can read it on WebArchive --SuperJew (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - although I am concerned with the fact that Hodgson herself seems to be the person that has requested this article be restored, there is just enough to pass GNG, in my view. Beyond90 has a few sentences as does the Adelaide Now article linked above. Impetus Football also has a few articles on her. From the one I've linked just now, we have some non-routine bits of coverage on her such as Hodgson is a popular player amongst the Adelaide faithful. She is a skilful and tenacious fullback who is also capable of driving upfield and setting up goals. In the last match of the 2020/21 season she was thrust into an attacking role as The Reds needed to increase their goal difference. She responded with a sensational goal in front of a record crowd. There are quite a few more sentences written about her as well so I would say this just about scrapes GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, See Spiderone's analysis below. Per SuperJew and Spiderone. Player with ongoing pro career. Article needs imporvemen,t not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a player profile. This [2] and this [3] from above are interviews and fails WP:IS, not even close to sourced properly for a standard article and this is a BLP. BEFORE found database entries and mentions in game recaps, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 20:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some decent sources mentioned above. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Spiderone. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC which allows us to stitch together parts of different articles, even where Hodgson is not necessarily the main focus. She may not have been notable in the Wikipedia sense when this article was first created, but easily satisfies the basic criteria for notability now. Her main problem is that she gives so many interviews and is quoted a lot...so we need to look for objective coverage / analysis / facts outside of any direct quotes. But the good news is that more than enough secondary sources have now been added to the article which has been expanded significantly (per WP:HEY). Some of the best secondary sources include "A fine 50 for United captain", a feature article about Hodgson's achievement of 50 matches in The Advertiser in Adelaide, which has covered her very regularly over the years (helping her to satisfy the WP:SUSTAINED requirement), in addition to the Beyond90 and Impetus articles mentioned above, plus all the other pieces which discuss her as a person which are now cited in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 17 November 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 doesn't seem to be agreement that the sources presented show a fully developed article can be written. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Pikulska[edit]

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

In sources Pikulska is often only listed. She is not a main character of quoted articles. Many sources only include her among other activists. IMO, there is no notability The Wolak (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Medicine. The Wolak (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, Politics, and Ukraine. Boud (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Np pl wiki article, passing mentions - does not seem to meet WP:NBIO/WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major figure in the current-day Polish medical rights/medical activism community. Covered in most of the major Polish media outlets for activism from 2017 for trainee doctors' rights, through to 2020 for government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and being a member of the Consultative Council of a broad range of citizens' activists, and in 2022 for direct help to hospitals in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. In 2016 she was targeted with misinformation by the main government TV station Telewizja Polska (TVP) to devalue her activism as reported in Oko Press - non-notable activists generally don't get attacked that way. Pikulska was head of a major organisation of surgeons, in which role she officially accused government officials of falsification and dangering lives and violating criminal law during the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g. full-article interview in Rzeczpospolita; again in Rzeczpospolita about her Nov 2020 calls for the government to resign; and again in 2022 was notable with a full-article interview in Tok FM about her hands-on activism in helping Ukrainian hospitals and patients. Clearly passes WP:NBASIC: multiple independent sources covering multiple aspects of her activism, with several full-article interviews. Boud (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rzeczpospolita is one of Poland's two newspapers of record. Of course, being the subject of misinformation by a major government media organisation - (Telewizja Polska in the case of this particular country) - is often evidence that someone is a notable dissident. Boud (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

For a few arbitrary sources not (yet) used in the article, see Onet or Newsweek or Termedia (Termedia [pl] - a Polish medical publisher). Boud (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources meet SIGCOV for her? Ie. which of them mention her in more than just passing? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources, there are paragraphs full of material about her to satisfy the GNG: Lekarka skarży wojewodę i ministra zdrowia. Bo wybory korespondencyjne to zagrożenie, Nie złamał jej hejt TVP. Kim jest młoda lekarka, która walczy z Szumowskim?, Kłamstwa na temat Katarzyny Pikulskiej, Katarzyna Pikulska: Dymisja rządu albo strajk generalny. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there is no indication of the lasting notability Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Just to take one of the many articles that are fully devoted as interviews with Pikulska: Katarzyna Pikulska: Infection statistics are misleading:
1. Pikulska's name is in the title of the article;
2. Pikulska's photo heads the top of the article;
3. Rzeczpospolita is one of Poland's two newspapers of record;
4. the entire article is an interview with Pikulska, with the interviewer's questions each followed by Pikulska's opinions.
@The Wolak, Piotrus, and Marcelus: In what sense is this April 2020 article on COVID-19 pandemic related issues not significantly presenting Pikulska as a sociopolitically relevant person in Poland for events prior to the November 2020 protests? Is Rzeczpospolita controlled by Pikulska (e.g. she funds it, she owns it - please provide sources)? The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the dominating socio-political issues in April 2020.
@The Wolak: Do you still claim that Pikulska is not a main character of this Rzeczpospolita article?
@Piotrus: Do you still claim that Pikulska is just given a passing mention in this article?
Keep in mind that in an AfD, you are expected to look at the existing sources, and look for other sources. Boud (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The interview is with her, not about her. It does little to estabilish her notability. She can have a Wikipedia article about her when independent, reliable sources cover her life and activities, not just ask her to speak about Polish medicine/politics/etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiyear appearances, subject of state-media smear, recognised leader of doctors' struggle, satisfies BASIC/GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Rutkiewicz, Paweł (22 April 2020). "Lekarka skarży wojewodę i ministra zdrowia. Bo wybory korespondencyjne to zagrożenie". warszawa.wyborcza.pl (in Polish).
^ Żądło, Agnieszka (1 May 2020). "Nie złamał jej hejt TVP. Kim jest młoda lekarka, która walczy z Szumowskim?". Newsweek (in Polish). Dwa lata temu stała się twarzą głodówki lekarzy rezydentów. Telewizja Polska zrobiła z niej wtedy pławiącą się w luksusach podróżniczkę. Teraz znów jest o niej głośno, bo ortopeda Katarzyna Pikulska oskarża ministra zdrowia Łukasza Szumowskiego i wojewodę mazowieckiego Konstantego Radziwiłła o złamanie kodeksu etyki lekarskiej.
^ "Protest głodowy Męczennicy sprawy". biennalewarszawa.pl (in Polish). Katarzyna Pikulska – lekarka, uczestniczka misji medycznych m.in. w Kurdystanie i Tanzanii, brała udział w ubiegłorocznym proteście głodowym lekarzy rezydentów.
^ Mierzynska, Anna (20 January 2023). "Pereira, Świrski i Nisztor mają uczyć o dezinformacji. Chociaż nie o tym, jak ją robić". oko.press (in Polish). Manipulacje TVP wzbudziły oburzenie. Ostatecznie Samuel Pereira przeprosił Katarzynę Pikulską i poinformował, że autor materiału o rezydentach został zawieszony.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are reasonably reliable, but SIGCOV and ONEVENT are an issue. There are two-three paragraphs about her. It's a start but IMHO it is not enough yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boud and Goldsztajn. Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as she has no publications indexed in MEDLINE as opposed to Roxana Moslehi --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pikulska is notable for medical rights activism, not for medical research. Roxana Moslehi is a medical researcher. Boud (talk) 17:05, 13 November 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. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heung Shing[edit]

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

The article does not make a good case (or even a poor case) for meeting WP:GNG. The Chinese article seems a bit better, but it translates poorly and I am not sure if it does or if it sources are good. BEFORE in English failed to find much, but maybe sources to rescue this exist in Chinese? Confusing content doesn't help with our article (it's a fictional city but it has a history section that suggests it has real archeological history? Ditto for geography). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Education, China, and Hong Kong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the zh.wp article, it's just a fictional city, and the History and Archaeology subheadings here appear to be written in in-universe tone. I'll make time to check the sources after work. Folly Mox (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't work. I did look for sources just now. This source does verify it's a fictional city used in exam questions for Hong Kong highschoolers, and goes on at some length about different fictional elements of the city and which years they were made up. It might not be an independent source; I have no idea how their academic system works, but I feel like the host for that source is involved with the administration of the test in which "Heung Hsing" appears.
This source indicates it also lends its name to some sort of educational programming; unclear if the topic is the same or if it's just using the same words. Chinese sources indicate that "Heung Shing"s native name is also shared by: a historical toponym mentioned in the Shuijing, near modern Yongcheng; a chain of hotels in Taiwan; a botanical garden in Suzhou. At least.
It's not super clear to me whether this topic is an educational conceit with something of a broader currency, like Alice and Bob, Foobar, or Spherical cow; or something super niche, only of interest to highschoolers, highschool educators, and test designers.
I was low key thinking initially that a merge into Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education might be appropriate, but I'm not sure where in the article would be a good spot for it. It has a lot of incoming mainspace links, but all of them seem to be via transclusion of Template:Education in Hong Kong (I definitely may have missed some; I'm pretty sleepy). Folly Mox (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources provided by Folly Mox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Wonderful job. I am ready to withdraw unless anyone else sees some problems? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 12 November 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 Between Two Empires. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Holly Shissler[edit]

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

They are an associate professor, this biography appears to fail WP:NPROF, seemingly one published book to their name "Between Two Empires". This is quite well cited but doesn't seem sufficient to claim "significant" impact in their field to pass NPROF 1, and fails points NPROF 2 to NPROF 8 Polyamorph (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Redirect to Between Two Empires per its creation during the course of this AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The associate professor title wouldn't concern me if it were clear she was on her way up, but with a single 20-year-old book she appears to have stalled out at that level. There are multiple reviews of her one book [4] [5] [6] [7]. But one book with a modest number of academic reviews is not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me (it would be a weak keep if we had the same number of reviews split over two authored books) and there seems to be nothing else. If we had an article on the book we could redirect to it but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Now we do. Redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I agree that she doesnt pass NAUTHOR or NPROF but it seems like the book itself would pass WP:NBOOK with those number of reviews and we could redirect this article to the book itself (even though I am somewhat unsure if the NBOOK guidelines were really designed with academic books in mind). --hroest 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBOOK is really just GNG in disguise. If a topic has multiple reliable independent sources published about it, then it is notable. GNG is a one-size-fits-all guideline with neither special consideration for topics which we might think notable but for which independent in-depth sourcing can be scarce (like major academic journals or societies) nor for topics which we might think routine but for which independent in-depth sourcing can be plentiful (like academic monographs). In this case, really the only throttle (without overthrowing GNG in favor of different notability thresholds for different topics) is whether some editor is interested enough to take the effort of making an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Turkey, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the brand new Between Two Empires. Thanks David Eppstein for digging up those reviews. —siro χ o 10:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Between Two Empires. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 12 November 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. After close analysis of sources, there is no agreement whether the article should be improved or deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Harrison Okoro[edit]

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

This article was created by a WikiEd student editing project, with indications on talk of COI. I can find no indication of notability beyond minor local coverage. It does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is met, but perhaps someone can find something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Businesspeople. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Environment, Basketball, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the off chance that it wasn't clear, the article was created in 2019 by a student editor D hall0504 from this course, and they said their list of potential biographies “was crowdsourced via Twitter and Facebook discussion boards”.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and we do not have evidence of notability through WP:GNG. I would be open to changing my mind if this AfD turns up in-depth coverage of the subject in independent and reliably published sources, but currently we have none of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with SG and David. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify, don't delete.~~ This school project is underway through early December. This will let students work on it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding the logic of having students work on an article if it doesn't meet notability; what are they learning then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what A. B. means is that the article does meet notability but more time is needed to prove it? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; then perhaps they can find some evidence of notability that I couldn't. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I doubt this article will be good enough. Perhaps I'm too accommodating; my recommendation to draftify is to give the students more time to work on it, at least through the end of their assignment. If it's not good enough, then I assume it will just expire on its own after 6 months in article limbo.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I believe they are all in sandbox anyway (eg User:SydtheSloth22/Melanie Harrison Okoro) and Wiki Ed staff has spoken to the prof about not moving their articles in to main space, as there are numerous problems (including I think all their image uploads are copyvios). So it seems a draft might be redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's the case, ~~Delete~~. Thanks for getting involved here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the logic of using students is that the minority group is very under represented in the Wikipedia space. Yes, students may need some corrections (simply because we do not have the experience as you all do) but I am certain after this lesson that's being learned, I would have learned a lot as a new editors. As well, most minority people just do not get the gigantic exposures as other groups. So in order for wikipedia to attempt to do it's part in closing the gap yes reliable regional publication is what the reach may be for the subject at this moment. Wikipedia realizes this and this is why they are reaching out to colleges to start to engage. I admit before this assignment, I always thought only professional prominent people created wikipedia pages. Now, I know I too can be a part of a diverse group teaching and adding to the big website full of data, SydtheSloth22 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SydtheSloth22, I’m not sure if minority people are under-represented, but I do think some groups like this are under-represented. But let’s admit it, many groups are under-represented in the real world, so perhaps Wikipedia is just reflecting that?

Anyway, it doesn’t relate much to our discussion here, because those under-represented can still be notable, and the under-represention can be one of the reasons that makes one notable! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in 2019. I am a student learning about updating and creating wiki pages. I am removing the image and would like to uploaded after reviewing more wiki images video to ensure it is properly uploaded. The image is free to use but the uploading process is plain out confusing. Perhaps I need more training to understand all of the image uploading options. This article had merit before I made any changes to it. Dr. Okoro has had lots of media coverage on the work and accomplishments, she has earned. I am fine with the page reverting back from my edits. Her page should not be deleted.Dustfreeworld SandyGeorgia SydtheSloth22 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SydtheSloth22 thanks for joining in; the best way to learn about Wikipedia is get actively engaged, as you're doing. We can discuss the image issues back at Talk:Melanie Harrison Okoro, so this page can stay focused on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guideine. There's no need to worry about older versions of the article, as experienced editors know how to look back, and also how to look forward in terms of discovering whether third-party independent sources with more than a passing mention exist to demonstrate notability, even when those aren't yet in the article. I've responded to your image queries over on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the attitude of SydtheSloth22 and the kind words of Sandy. These are the reasons to stay :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage exists in this profile in a Sacramento magazine, brief profile by Danielle N. Lee for Scientific American, a writeup from her alma mater (semi-independent), and video profile from KQED (using her maiden name). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hameltion's new refs. Thanks for digging these up.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts and David Eppstein: for a look. I'm not sure I'm comfortable using a blog, even if Scientific American, or her connected alma mater, or a small local magazine to establish notability, but then, I'm dismal at AFD, so pay me no mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) American Geophysical Union

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228130343/https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/melanie-harrison-okoro-2/

2) Ecological Society of America

https://www.esa.org/montreal2022/plenaries/

3) Aldo Leopold Nature Center

https://alncfeaturedscientist.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/dr-melanie-harrison-okoro/ (A long page about her; cited in the article long before this AfD)

4) Grist (magazine)

https://grist.org/article/meet-8-black-leaders-who-are-reshaping-the-climate-movement/ (One of the 8 leaders described)

5) California High-Speed Rail

https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Small_Business_Factsheet_082521_A11Y.pdf (Page 2, one long paragraph)

6) American Scientist

https://www.americanscientist.org/author/melanie_harrison_okoro (short profile)

+) Plus the Sci American one which was cited in the article long before this AfD.

PS. IMHO the Sci American page can also be counted as RS per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Other_sources:

”... blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and Discover blogs host many such experts, as do more specific portals such as the public outreach and service blogs at the Large Hadron Collider blogs or the more STEM policy oriented blog hosted by the American Physical Society.” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These (and the sources you've cited above), appear to be short bios or interviews, which isn't enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, The Scientific American blog reference possibly works per WP:NEWSBLOG which makes an exception (with a caveat) for news organization' blogs:

"Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. 'Jane Smith wrote ...'"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi voorts, thanks for the reply. As I’m fairly new here, can you explain that more? As per WP:SIGCOV,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the requirements for notability is that a source must be independent. The sources you've cited are either brief bios in the context of the subject being a contributor to or associated with a project or publication, brief mentions in top 10 lists, or they're interviews. Interviews do not generally establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation :)

I agree with you that sources associated with the subject are not suitable for establishing notability. I just listed whatever I found, thinking that some of those can be used as sources later. I still believe the sources #3, #4 and #5 I listed above and the Sci American one do establish notability. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence yet to pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comment She appears to have a lot of public engagement in science communication as shown in the oldest version of this article. What about WP:NACADEMIC, e.g. #4, #7? (That section needs clean-up if it’s to be included in the article though).

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I would like to add that the article was created in 2019 by a student editor D hall0504 from this course, which I believe is not the same as the mentioned ~~problematic course~~course [8] that appears to have coi issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC); edited 18:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that she is notable. The references presented are very poor and don't provide any support in keeping the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and mostly definently fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nominator, I am an implied Delete, but because I am dismal at AFD, I wanted to hold off on forming an opinion until more experienced AFDers had weighed in. I believe the Deletes have it right, and the discussion at the Education noticeboard pushes me away from not speaking up in the interest of the students' hard effort. They have been choosing subjects from sub-optimal lists of what is deemed notable, which is not a good learning experience for them under any circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

7) How to Engage More African Americans in STEM, HEATHER M. THORSTENSEN, Blog from the staff (same event mentioned at Sigma Xi) - a Google Hangout moderated by Sigma Xi's manager of programs, Janelle Simmons

8) Celebrating Bay Area Women in STEM KQED

And What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad

With my other reasons above and WP:BASIC. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC); edited 10:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Xi newsletter May-June 2016, p.4 (similar to 7 above, but not blog anymore)

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources are interviews, which generally don't establish notability unless they're in very high quality sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but please see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability:

“A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography...

...interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts.

...if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline.

If you aren't looking at a reputable publication, you need to consider whether the interview is really an advertisement written and paid for by a marketing campaign…” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the sources above and in article show the person meets ANYBIO#2, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", NPROF#1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". This is a stretch, but I think it crosses the finish line. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aamjhar River[edit]

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

I have failed to verify that such a river exists. The references consist of two youtube videos of people standing in water bodies that seem like rivers somewhere close to Aamjhar and a google search of a bridge on the river Ahu (which flows close to Aamjher I guess). None of this actually proves that that the freakin river exists pointing to the fact that this article is probably a WP:HOAX. Sohom (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as the only sources are YouTube videos and a Google search. Doesn’t even meet the low standards of WP:GEONATURAL. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GEONATURAL and GNG. The river does exist as an incident occurred there, but regardless, this source won't satisfy notability guidelines. Tails Wx 02:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name is the Amajarv river on both the ISRO and MapmyIndia maps, and it is a tributary of the Ahu River not of the Kali Sindh. So the article is wrong in its basics. This is a start-again situation. Without sourcing to YouTube next time, clearly. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not that the river is short, I get it, but there is nothing important about it and large parts of the article are unsourced. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香, 03:42, 17 November 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 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Routofy[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 10 November 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 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Sports Fans[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Websites. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This e-publication is not notable (lack of in-depth coverage of the publication itself, in independent reliable sources), notwithstanding that it was involved in a short-term controversy about what it said about a particular player. The controversy (which accounts for most mentions of this blog in sources) is not itself notable, and is at best a minor side point in the player's bio article (it probably passes the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE test). PS: If the article is kept, it needs to have its citations repaired; many of them are abusing the |title= parameter to provide misc. annotations instead of the titles of the articles they link to, most are missing dates and other key information, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever (podcast)[edit]

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

Vanishingly small evidence of notability. Previously referenced to various fringe right-wing sources, tabloid gossip sites and non-RSes. After I asked on the talk page over a week ago for three solid RSes showing notability, a frequent editor tried to remove the single RS reference. On a WP:BEFORE, there doesn't appear to be anything in solid mainstream RSes that discusses this topic such as to show it meets WP:GNG or any specific notability guideline. PROD removed with no action to remedy these issues. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Calling this a podcast is pretty much incorrect; it's more of a never-ending live stream and it seems these moments get picked out because...the show is six hours long and the guests are lethargic by the end and the regulars somehow call that a 'gotcha moment' to mock their invited guests. Just by its length, lack of topic clarity and and its guest pool made up of mostly unknowns, it can't easily hit WP:GNG because you have to be in that specific interest field and have the endurance to last six hours to call it notable, and very few are going to make that commitment to a show that can't even be bothered to stay on its topic of dating. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - as the original page creator, there was a reason why I kept it in the WP:DRAFTSPACE; there was simply too little sourcing in May and I made the bet that this will eventually pass WP:GNG. It hasn't yet. It. I see that EytanMelech (talk · contribs), who was the individual who moved this article to the WP:MAINSPACE, has not been notified of this WP:AFD. — Knightoftheswords 20:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of it. I had plenty of sources that I assumed were RS, but it seems as though Gerard and others disagree on that account. If those sources do not count, then I wholeheartedly second the article for deletion. The podcast is past its peak and I highly doubt that the sources reporting on it will ever be the ones Wikipedia allows cited. EytanMelech (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there are decent sources, I can't find them. I can't even find that many garbage sources, tbh. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm only able to find tabloid and unreliable sources like the NY Post, Breitbart, and the Daily Wire. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:59, 16 November 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 draftify‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie Weir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a Draftify back in September and has been accepted at AFC. She fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. The new sources are match reports and non independent stories from her employers. Dougal18 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just wanted to clarify that I re-submitted the draft because I had actually thought the last two notable events added to the "Club career" section (Weir's first goal for Glasgow City and a recent red card) could be enough to reach minimum WP:GNG: I tried to pick sources that specifically mentioned Weir's involvement extensively enough... Oltrepier (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems like a good solution as it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. Might be worth clarifying she's not related to Caroline. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all above Svartner (talk) 15:30, 16 November 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 as a hoax per G3‎. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nile Fc[edit]

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

This is the 2nd time that this article has been created (previously a speedy delete). I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG being met and WP:V might even be a concern. Contrary to what the article says, they did not win the Egypt Cup in 2019. That would be quite remarkable if a team formed in 2015 and playing in the 4th tier did. I don't think that they even played in the qualifying rounds. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously tagged for speedy delete as the article was an exact copy and paste from an article about a different club so it's irrelevant. I don't follow sports but there aren't any sources referenced so it's highly possible that the information is incorrect. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 16:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N'Diaye Djiby[edit]

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

A (former?) footballer with just a bunch of reported occasional appearances in the minor professional leagues and no WP:SIGCOV available, apart from the usual passing mentions and stats pages. [9] He therefore fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Signing to Chievo Verona can be notable, I am unclear how much coverage he had, I really am not sure, but the nominator has a strong point again lack of SIGNOV etc, if people find good sources please ping me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 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. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Sam (EP)[edit]

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

Just a tracklist. Only uses SoundCloud as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust member (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucki: I could only find one announcement and two brief mentions in roundup announcement articles ([10][11][12]), and that's not enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. We have three short reviews available, each providing some secondary analysis of the subject:
1. Sheldon Pearce in Pitchfork [13], including for example:
  On Son of Sam, he raps as if he’s perpetually groggy from a Xanax bender, penning wandering but colorful descriptions of his highs and what exactly he does to get them. His writing hasn’t missed a beat, but his delivery has grown increasingly sedated and leisurely....
2. Leor Galil in Chicago Reader [14] including:
  ... rapper Lucki Ecks released Son of Sam, an EP that moves further toward the hazy, narcotized soundscapes he’s toyed with throughout his short career. He takes an abrasive, experimental turn on “Jigga 98”....
3. Chris Mench in Complex magazine [15] including:
  The majority of the tape is dark, with Eck$ spitting over hazy, haunting beats. It's certainly not destined for the radio, but his slurred, macabre style certainly has its appeal. At times, his voice can even sound more like another part of the beat than something totally distinct from it.

Also have some short mentions in Brooklyn Vegan, Hip-hopVibe and a long retrospective review three years later in what seems to be a marginally reliable source Underground Underdogs

—siro χ o 05:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 November 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, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm skeptical about the last three sources Siroxo provides, but the first three just about scrape it over GNG for me. AryKun (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per siroxo. dxneo (talk) 12:26, 17 November 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 Draftify‎. Whilst there appears to be general agreement that the article is struggling to pass GNG at this present time, that does not preclude further sources appearing in the future. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flowerdew[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search only found only routine coverage of results, and a couple of passing mentions in books. Flowerdew became a professional snooker player at a time when anyone could do so by paying a subscription fee (which hundreds of people did). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've not really got the energy for another impassioned defence of one of my own articles, but that's probably just as well! Anyway, I am fairly sure he passes WP:NSPORT, especially in relation to cue sports. The article needs fleshing out, but how many others players who have been ranked inside the top 64, for example, have been found not to be notable? A fluke ranking event quarter-finalist I would understand, but by being ranked 50th, Flowerdew was an integral part (however rarely-mentioned in newspapers he may be) of the professional side of the sport in the mid-1990s. I would argue that how he gained his pro status is irrelevant in this case, because he did forge a career which made him worthy of note regardless. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, I'll be happy to vote in favour of deletion in future discussions! I do feel it would be a shame were that to happen, though. Montgomery15 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Montgomery15: The WP:NSPORT FAQ says that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." I've checked in the British Newspaper Archive as well as using a search engine, and not found any significant coverage. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Draft - I'm satisfied that there are enough references in books to show that the player existed but not enough to verify the current content of the page. By that reasoning and WP:V the whole contents can/should be removed. I suspect there are snooker magazines that maybe have more coverage, but until we have verified content we can't say anything about him. JMWt (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With no existing references and my own search showing nothing beyond results and WP:ROUTINE, I see no way to argue that this page meets WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It seems fairly probable to me that various snooker-related paper sources may have more and sufficient material about this subject, but it will take someone with a collection of, or ready access to, such periodicals to do the work, and this might not happen in a timely fashion. I don't think this has enough GNG sourcing to remain in mainspace, but I don't see any need to outright delete it when there's a fair chance of its improvement. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1991, when the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association opened membership to anyone who paid a fee, it was likely that a new professional would get at least a paragraph in Snooker Scene; in the late 90s, the Benson and Hedges Snooker Yearbook would generally also have brief profiles on each player. The November 1990 Snooker Scene reported that there were 443 new snooker professionals; in a monthly magazine with only around 32 pages, obviously there was not going to be room to provide in-depth coverage of all of the new intake alongside all of the other snooker and billiards news and reports. Cue World had already been merged into Snooker Scene by that point, and from the issues of Pot Black I have from around that time, it seems unlikely that they would have given any more coverage than Snooker Scene, despite their higher page count. Similarly, as 401 professionals including Flowerdew lost their status at the end of the 1996-97 season, it was unlikely that all would receive much coverage at that point. The British Newspaper Archive is often a fruitful source for coverage of snooker players, especially from local/regional press, but I didn't find anything substantial there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:10, 12 November 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Livre de Pièces de Clavecin[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced, and notability not demonstrated. This was originally made live at Music of Versailles but in 2012 I moved it to the present title since it is nearly all about a particular set of suites by Bernard de Bury. However, that set is not the only "Premier livre de Pièces de Clavecin"; a Google search finds others than Bury's, by Jean-Philippe Rameau, François Couperin, Jean-François Dandrieu, Charles-Alexandre Jollage and Joseph-Nicholas-Pancrace Royer, so if this article is not deleted then it should be renamed with the suffix "(Bury)". This article states its source as the PhD thesis of Ruta Bloomfield (reviewed at doi:10.1017/S1478570616000129). Bloomfield previously had a bio article in Wikipedia, which was created by the same editor, both in Feb 2009. The bio was deleted in 2019 as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruta Bloomfield. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has 6 references, could perhaps use more inline citations? It's mentioned here [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added the IMSLP entry. Grove, and a review of a recording tell me enough about notability. One ref doesn't work for me, but I have no time to dig into it deeper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change title as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 11 November 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 speed keep vandalism removed and both river and state can be called just "Benue" anyway. (non-admin closure)‎. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benue[edit]

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

The title refers to Benue, but the disambig refers to "LAGOS" in all caps, and five out of six links are red. The Wasp ^{[my nest]} 12:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Wasp ^{[my nest]} 12:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article had been vandalized by replacing "Benue" with "LAGOS" throughout, hence the redlinks. I reverted to a pre-vandal version. Inadvertently dropped the AfD header in the process, but suggest rhuz AfD be closed anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that the vandalism has been reverted, this looks like a reasonable dab page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 10 November 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 Pasay#Education. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasay City South High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NSCHOOL. Most of it is unsourced, the only source included is the schools own website. A search for sources turned up nothing to meet the criteria just unreliable sources etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasay#Education as an AtD. The content of the article is a history of the school from the school's own website, so not independent. However, some verified content could be useful for expanding the education section in the target article. The school is likely notable in the context of Pasay City, but doesn't at present satisfy the GNG for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasay#Education per Rupples --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 17 November 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 Evacuations during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. ✗plicit 12:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ajay[edit]

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

Short article. Can perfectly be merged into Evacuations during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. We have too many content forks about this war. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and India. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Not really a particularly notable or worthwhile in of itself. It could be readily incorporated into the target. Nepalese citizens are meanwhile not Indian ones ... not sure what's going on there. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries evacuate citizens from other countries as well during incidents like these. It might not make much sense to send a plane yourself if you have just three people there. Another country could just help you out. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was more highlighting the lack of effort to align the lead and body. The net effect of the page is a bare bones list with half a dozen entries in it - not exactly stellar standalone content. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes then, I agree with that. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not particularly notable, mostly just has the run-of-the-mill coverage all evacuations received at the start of the war. AryKun (talk) 19:45, 10 November 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 St Germans & Looe Railway. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hessenford railway station[edit]

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

Hard to see how a never-built railway station is notable or that there is much to be said. Any content would be better at St Germans & Looe Railway - but not convinced even a redirect is necessary. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging if NN to St Germans & Looe Railway would probably make sense as it does seen like a useful term as we normally do have articles for completed stations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Germans & Looe Railway. There's nothing here to merge, but it's a useful redirect to capture the search term. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There seems to be a consensus that sources provided are enough to pass GNG, and thus to keep the article as is. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Re'im[edit]

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

One day-long battle. Not notable. The article is only one paragraph long. It can perfectly be integrated into 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. It can perfectly be integrated: I have, in fact, already done so. The redirect was reverted, though the merged content was left in the target article. Clearly this is non-notable. DFlhb (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A documented battle which was fought over a military base. The article (Wiki) was also mentioned by a media organization as well [17]. Also, an WP:OTHERLANGS argument (can’t be used alone) also helps supports my point, given this battle is in over 10 other Wiki-languages. Obviously, that argument can’t be used alone, but when media name the battle + mention the English Wiki article + translated into 11 other languages, one can’t just say it “isn’t” notable without providing good reasoning. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Documented", mentioned by media, and OTHERLANGS are not valid arguments. This article must meet WP:NEVENT (not GNG), and it doesn't, because it lacks depth and duration of coverage, and documented (sourced) lasting effects or historical significance. The sources are breaking news sources, which generally don't count for event notability. DFlhb (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious on why you said OTHERLANGS is “not valid” for an argument? My reasoning was clear without mentioning it and actually per WP:OTHERLANGS, A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English. It is covered by several news articles and this Wikipedia article was mentioned by a news article. Anyway, after watching an article with 2 sentences pass AfD (version after the keep conensus) because it had several RS sources supporting it, a well-documented brief battle with at least 8 WP:RS sources, which was mentioned by a media outlet & has been translated into nearly a dozen other Wikipedia languages clearly passes the bar. Direct comparison should be avoided by itself per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there is too many RS sources (my exact reasoning) mentioning the battle as well as several supporting facts for this case. My !vote will remain keep. WP:COALing out time. Peace y’all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Based on the RS listed in the article it passes WP:GNG and the AfD nomination nor the additional !vote actually suggest deletion. Both are pertaining to merges. A look at the article talk page hints at 0 prior discussions occurring for a merge, so it appears WP:BEFORE wasn't followed and the AfD is being used incorrectly, when the nominator appears to be more or less requesting a merge, not deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An important battle, where Israeli forces were defeated and Hamas subsequently filmed dead Israelis for social media. It seems to be one of the more disasterious defeats of the IDF. It is also costumery for there to be articles on. Also there seem to be ample articles on subject.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] English

Local news: [18],[19],[20],[21],[22] Homerethegreat (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Williams, Dan (7 October 2023). "How the Hamas attack on Israel unfolded". Reuters. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
^ "At least 7 Nepali injured, 17 held captive by Hamas in Israel: Nepal's envoy". ANI. 7 October 2023. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
^ David Rosenberg (October 9, 2023). "Hamas invasion death toll rises to 800 as Israel prepares for far more dangerous threat from north". World Israel News. Archived from the original on 16 October 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Daniella Cheslow (October 10, 2023). "Israel and the West reckon with a high-tech failure". Politico. Archived from the original on 17 October 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ "Israel says it regains control of Re'im army base". Defense Blog. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
^ Fabian, Emanuel (7 October 2023). "IDF regains control of Re'im military base from Hamas terrorists in southern Israel". Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.

Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel as completely underwhelming at just 127 words (below the absolute minimum threshold for a standalone piece of content, per WP:SIZERULE), and with no apparent detail - not even casualty numbers for the two sides - making it far from standalone page-worthy from the get-go. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST — “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article”. See the 2-sentence article mentioned above which was kept due to the existence of multiple RS sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes GNG, see refs above and in article. // Timothy :: talk 06:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited are trivial mentions, not WP:INDEPTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a documented battle covered in multiple sources. IJA (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing in the WP:GNG that precludes one-day battles. This meets all the criteria; keep it. Combefere ★ Talk 02:35, 17 November 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 Altaf Dadasaheb Shaikh, redirect Veda BF to List_of_Marathi_films_of_2018#January_–_March. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Dadasaheb Shaikh[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:FILMMAKER. Initial version had claims of all sorts of fictitious awards, but the only one he seems to have received is for the "London Book of World Records", clearly a paid vanity award [23], [24],[25]. The only film he seems to have released so far is Veda BF, which likewise appears to fail WP:NFILM, so I'll bundle that into this deletion discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Wikishovel (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it fails WP:NFILM, with no significant coverage in reliable sources:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film: Veda BF ...I deproDed the page after the redirect I had made was reverted. I still think redirect to List_of_Marathi_films_of_2018#January_–_March (where it is mentioned with a source) is a good solution but also rather oppose deletion. Director: I don't think it is a good idea to bundle the film with its director. So, for the director, for procedural reason (I'd rather wait for the film's Afd to be closed and to see if it is considered notable enough or not, before deciding), keep for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILMMAKER. For the film, redirect as above as it fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFILMMAKER, redirect film as per DonaldD23. Kazamzam (talk) 12:39, 19 November 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. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wragge[edit]

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

This one sentence biography article has zero references to establish notability. After searching, unable to find in depth reliable sources. Article was created on 20 August 2006. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thank you Cielquiparle for article improvements. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can't be closed based on a nominator's withdrawal since there are votes to Delete this article. You'll have to wait for a regular closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this person, several meteorologists with a similar name pop up Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ENFA confirms this player had a 15 year career playing for 'Whitmore, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Oakengates Town, Bristol Rovers, Stafford Rangers, Torquay Utd, Walsall, Madeley Miners Welfare, OD Murphy Sports (Wellington)'. What attempt has been made to search for offline sources, given this player was active in the 1920s and 1930s? Giant Snowman 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also going with keep, I feel there might be better WP:OFFLINESOURCES, I see him named in two seasons for Wolves, [26] and [27], mentioned in [28] Some mention on a war memorial, but not sure that's related or not. Dates seemed wrong for it. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. A newspapers.com search only turned up namedrops. Dougal18 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Dougal18: Which newspapers? Old match reports? Govvy (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Govvy: He is in several newspapers but it's mostly transfers and injuries. His wife Mabel died in 1938 but there was no sigcov of Frank in the articles. Dougal18 (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougal18: okay, however, considering when he played, I am simply staying with my keep vote for now, as I am assuming good faith that there are offline sources. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (weak) I think these newspapers.com results [29] shows there is probably offline local coverage. The sources are very weak, but they seem inline with what consensus says is acceptable. There is also a Frank "Wragg" who is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Polyamorph (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep USA sources such as newspapers.com isn't really useful for 100-year old footballers; it simply doesn't have much historic UK coverage. But it's easy to find sources in British newspapers, such as he played for Torquay United F.C. in 1928 according to this from the Sports Argus, having gone there in 1927 from Stafford Rangers F.C. according to the Staffordshire Sentinel here. Later in 1928 he was injured while playing for Walsall F.C according to the Argus here. There's a good 1931 piece in the Birmingham Gazette when he went to Oakengates Athletic F.C. here, which also notes he played for Wolves, Bristol Rovers F.C., and the other teams listed above. There's dozens more. This looks to be a BEFORE failure, User:JoeNMLC - not so much because there wasn't a search, but nominating players for top teams 100 years ago in England, shouldn't be done without a comprehensive search of the British Newspaper Archive. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your links just lead to a registration page. Searching for "Frank Wragge" gave 13 matches of which 4 aren't relevant and three are about his wife's death. Fortunately the sources are available on newspapers.com. The Sentinel is one sentence of routine transfer coverage. The Argus is routine injury coverage. Finally the "good piece" from the Gazette is routine transfer coverage where his previous clubs are cited. Dougal18 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with transfer coverage. ROUTINE is nothing to do with that. Links are fine, unless you haven't logged into BNA. BNA access is available for free, if you apply through Wikipedia Library. I don't think those that haven't gotten this should be nominating AFDs in this area. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm finding more articles if you simply search for ... wragge wolves. Such as this 1923 article in the London Daily News. - https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003212/19231204/205/0011 about his injury, while he was playing for Bristol. Might be even more hits for ... wragge rovers. Nfitz (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have played several seasons for top teams, suspect sources exist in local offline archives. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC in light of sources now added to the article for this historical sports biography about a player born 125 years ago. IMO, it was a fair AfD nomination though, as there were zero sources cited at the time of nomination (and for a couple weeks afterwards). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per expansion work by Cielquiparle BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations. Views were split between keep, redirect, merge and delete - this seems the most suitable compromise that was also asked for by some editors. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.R. Labs[edit]

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

Minor comic book location. As usual, we just have a plot summary and a list of comics and related media it appears in. No analysis, reception, etc. Refs are mostly comics themselves supplemented by a few comic book summaries (illustrated plot summaries for fans) like The DC Comics Encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. The best WP:ATD I can think of would be redirecting this to List of DC Universe locations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 3 November 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, article is largely an example farm and pure plot information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations where there is already a short entry for this topic. Rhino131 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations. This is a good target for this. Otherwise, there is no analysis of the location suitable to satisfy GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The location has significance in universe but not in, it is the main setting for The Flash (2014 TV series) if source can be found on that verison I would say Keep. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have found source.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Significant fictional location akin to other existing articles. Improve, rewrite, expand. AFD is not the place for cleanup. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per above is all redirect. Nothing above has advocated a clear keep !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OLIfanofmrtennant said keep if a source can be found. I'd concur with that. In general, I prefer keeping arricles instead of redirecting or deleting them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bookworm857158367: I found a few sources, this talks about the titans version compared to the arrowverse version [30], this talks about various arrowverse settings including S.T.A.R. Labs [31], [32], [33] talks about the Gotham Knights verison, and this [34] compares the Naomi verison to the arrowverse version although very breifly confirming that its seprate atleast, [35] arrowverse again, and this talks about how Ryan Choi works there in the DCEU[36]~~~
  Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep Super Skills, Super Reading - Literacy and Television Superheroes has a 2+ page chapter dedicated to S.T.A.R. labs, i.e. significant coverage. There are a number of other sources which are shorter and/or focussed on plot summary. So if this should deemed not enough for a stand-alone article, this deserves more than the one dry sentence at the suggested redirect. At the very least, throwing out the sources we have in favour of the unsourced definition at List of DC Universe locations seems like a step backwards. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Hmmm, it looks good, but I read it and I am having trouble piecing together even a single sentence of summary for an analysis section. Anything you can do? I fear this is a lot of "emtpy talk about nothing", plot summary and some vague beating around the theory woods, but perhaps I am tired... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've done my take on this. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd certainly support merging your addition to the article about the show proper, but I am not sure if the location is notable. Certainly, 98% of the text we have is plot and listcruft :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I found various sources you can try.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is more of a No consensus discussion than I've seen in a while. While participation has been great here (especially compared to so many other AFDs), we still need to reach a rough consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep or Merge- per above 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has some news coverage from just a single Google search, probably notable enough. AryKun (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't TVLine not a reliable source? Or am I confusing that with something similar. Conyo14 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TV Line is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 00:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was definitely thinking of something else. Conyo14 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @OlifanofmrTennant:, @Daranios:, and @AryKun:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations: Fancruft. Sources do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This has sources for a paragraph, not an article and the fancruft should be deleted entirely. // Timothy :: talk 11:42, 18 November 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 and rename to the current name. Consensus has clearly developed since relisting following the provision of additional evidence. BD2412 T 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kikeout Mountain[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, only notable for its "unusual" name.)) Liam Plecak (talk) 08:58, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that. It's that it doesn't seem to be true from article title at the top to non-functional GNIS link at the bottom. The National Map has a Kakeout Mountain at this location. And a 1960 Master Plan of the Borough of Kinnelon, New Jersey has Kakeout in its names, too; so there's serious doubt that this was ever true, including in the 1980s. Everything in this article seems to be unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I did get into GNIS on this: it lists Kikeout as an invalid name, along with another. This is an area where the topos go way back, and interestingly, the oldest one say "Kakeout"; then the feature name disappears for a while, and when ti reappears, it is now "Kikeout" and stays so for the rest of the series. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet the record for feature 877559 says "Kakeout Mountain". Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gilliam created the article, so perhaps he can provide some details? I've blocked the nominator as a cross-wiki sock, and they failed to notify Gilliam of this AfD.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many, many references to Kikeout Mountain on newspapers.com. I have not analyzed whether this amounts to sufficient coverage needed to establish notability, but there is no doubt this is a real place. Jacona (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from one event, George Washington visited Kikeout Mountain, there was a reservoir built here (Kikeout Reservoir) which resulted in quite a bit of coverage, in 1897 gold was allegedly found on Kikeout Mountain, and it goes on and on. There's plenty of coverage. While not required, it is highly advisable to check newspapers.com for US locations as part of WP:BEFORE. I have clipped a few of these, hopefully will find time to post some of them here, but please check for yourself! The deletion rationale of WP:ONEEVENT may or may not apply to a geographic feature, but it is not at all applicable to this article. Jacona (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. As pointed out, the nominator is a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. this sheds some light on the name change. Jacona (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for me, as I don't have access, and you haven't cited anything about the source to find it. The GNIS record for feature 877559 says "Kakeout Mountain" and dates it to 1979-09-08, which is before the supposed fuss about it being changed from "Kikeout" to "Kakeout" in 1986. So we've got a couple of journalists talking about a mountain and a road, and the actual 1960s borough plan, the National Map, and even the GNIS record to which this is sourced all saying "Kakeout" all along; which rather casts doubt on the reliability of the sources that say it was changed from "Kikeout" to "Kakeout", on which almost all of which this article content is based.
  I finally located the NorthJersey article using the Wayback Machine (which points to non-existent archives in several snapshots). It's very confusing, apparently mixing and matching letters to the editor in 1986 with a newsgroup post in 2005. But that sources the name change to the newsgroup post, and places it "after World War II". Google Groups doesn't turn up a newsgroup post, but there's a Rich Dean, erstwhile emergency services dispatcher (xe states) posting on Facebook, which is basically non-searchable.
  So we have an article, starting off at Special:Diff/645570523 with a name that isn't in the records from at least the 1960s onwards, and isn't on the National Map today, and we're basing most of this "controversy", and most of the article, on 1 letter to the editor of a local newspaper written by Albert G. Hotkins (whoever that is, NorthJersey doesn't say) decades after World War II. And Facebook posts.
  I think that we're woefully misinforming readers, here, with stuff that hasn't been verifiably true for 60 years, and 1 angry letter to the editor inviting people to join an apparently 1-person local pressure group in 1986.
  Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, there are several other sources that discuss the name change on newspapers.com. If you don’t have access, you can get it at the Wikipedia library. Access to newspapers.com is available free to Wikipedians with a certain number of edits and no active blocks. — Jacona (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jacona. Interesting (and reported) things have occurred there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements during the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to current name Kakeout Mountain: Passes GNG and WP:GEONATURAL. A redirect can take care of the former name. // Timothy :: talk 11:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- TimothyBlue, I endorse the move. — Jacona (talk) 19:10, 18 November 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 Sam Sen railway station. While this is a different station to the one the article originally discusses, it is a plausible search term for the other station. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sen station[edit]

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

unsource and still under proposal Jjpachano (talk) 06:06, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rapid transit stations in Bangkok. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If redirected, Sam Sen railway station would probably be a better target. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2 redirect targets have been proposed. Which one to choose?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is "Sam Sen railway station" is SRT station and "Sam Sen station" is SRT Red Lines station which not yet built - Jjpachano (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles as they currently exist are about different subjects, but if the one about the planned Red Line station is deleted or redirected, the remaining title would be a likely search term for the existing one. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 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 List of DC Comics characters: H. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Henderson[edit]

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

"supporting character in Superman comics" that seems to fail WP:GNG. We have just a plot summary and list of appearances, and my BEFORE is showing just some mentions in passing but nothing substantial. Media likewise has just plot summaries with an occasional comment on casting in TV show or such (ex. [37]). Unless anyone can dig up anything I missed I suggest redirecting this to List of Superman supporting characters per WP:ATD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 10 November 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 Police. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 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 Metropolis (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Slum[edit]

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

Fictional comic book location. The article is just a pure plot summary. My BEFORE shows a few passing mentions in the context of black superheroes in the USA, but nothing that meets SIGCOV; the best I see about the location in here: "vividly realized streets and alleys of Suicide Slum, DC’s fictional version of Manhattan’s Lower East Side" but that's again just half a sentence. Unless anyone can find something better, I think we can only redirect this to List_of_DC_Universe_locations per WP:ATD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolis (comics) - While it may have started out as a fictionalized version of a New York slum, it has been featured as a part of Metropolis for over fifty years now, and is, in fact, already covered on our article on that fictional city. I agree with the nominations assessment of the lack of notability for this fictional location, but would advocate Metropolis (comics) being the target for a redirect rather than List of DC Universe locations. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolis (comics) per above. AryKun (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with it's section at Metropolis (comics) in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to WP:PRESERVE. No separate notability from the main topic about the wider fictional location. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 14 November 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 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Sports[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, cites no sources other than the company's own website, no WP:RS DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Baseball, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find usage of the phrase "Imagine sports without xyz" but nothing for this company. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any GNG level sources under any of the names this company has used. Fails WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 11 November 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 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Matthews[edit]

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

Only source is dubious, completely fails WP:BASIC, WP:RS DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we would need more sources or evidence that he meets some criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.Royal88888 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He looks like a longtime studio sideman in the jazz community who got some notable associates to play on his own album, but that's all I can find on him. No biographical information in reliable sources or any pro reviews of his one album. The album is only visible in basic directory listings, and it was released in 1978, contrary to what this article says. Not enough for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 13 November 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. ✗plicit 05:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro Metropólitan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO. Only source that could potentially be described as RS is [38], all others are self-published sources, or IMDb (and passing mention to boot). Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Mexico. Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not attempting to change your opinion, but would you mind providing some of that? It would be beneficial if you, me, or some other editor could use them to improve the article rather than delete it. Fermiboson (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above. 63.115.34.165 (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historic theater, here [39] and [40]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some mentions of the upgrade in the last few decades [41] Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 10 November 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 07:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After twenty years, there have been basically no reliable third-party-sources written about this webcomic. It was mentioned by Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, but notability isn't inherited. There's an interview by ComixTalk, but that seems to be a blog. After twenty years, you'd think there would be some coverage in reliable sources, that when I google the name of the webcomic, I'd get some results beyond Reddit posts, this very Wiki page, and the TVTropes article, but there aren't any except decades-old sources of questionable usability mentioning the comic in WP:PASSING. I don't see how this remotely passes WP:GNG, and I'm kind of confused how previous AfDs haven't been successful. HappyWith (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. HappyWith (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Alas, no mention of it in my books. Looks like all we have is the WCCA win, the Comixtalk interview, and the Sequential Tart review. The only other thing listed in the article is this podcast, which doesn't come across as usable for notability. I have pretty low standards, but this is sadly not quite enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought there might be two claims of notability in the lead paragraph, but upon further reading it turns out that "is a member of the Create a Comic Project" just means the comics were used in a "Free Public Library as an after-school program". And then "won a Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" just means this won a web poll where "Winners of awards receive an individualized web banner". There is no significant coverage in reliable sources for any of this, and it is unbelievable that the highest achievement this has reached is "won a web banner in an online poll" and "was used in an after-school drawing program at a local library" and we have have articles on these things. I am in agreement with the editors above that this does not meet even the lowest standards and it is crazy to think, after some of the far better sourced articles I've seen deleted, that this article has existed for twenty years and three deletion discussions. It is amazing that articles this bad have existed this long. Elspea756 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 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 - nominator withdrew (non-admin closure)‎. St Anselm (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Blakesley[edit]

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

Very few refs on page for many years. Nothing much to suggest notability. Also apparently incorporates text from another encyclopedia, which doesn't seem good. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, see the assessment of tertiary sources in general at WP:TERTIARY and a discussion of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition's reliability in particular at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Public domain. Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability and they can be used with care as sources but they are definitely not preferred.

The Encyclopædia Britannica series has been around for two centuries and generally viewed as one of the best (if not the best) encyclopaedias

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is unreliable for the many things that have changed: aereoplanes, relativity, plastics, etc. For historical topics, the concern is that interpretations of history may have changed: Reconstruction after the American Civil War, the Boer War, etc. Also, archeology or the discovery of old texts: Dead Sea Scrolls, Norse colony in Newfoundland, etc.

I think in this case, we're pretty safe. Looking at the Wikisource copy: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blakesley, there's little interpretation done - basically a short factual article with no ideological bias. Blakesley died just 24 years earlier, so there weren't archaeological discoveries to be made. There's no science or technology. I think it's a solid ref for this particular article.

I don't find this article especially interesting or compelling but it is encyclopaedic. Blakely was notable in 1911 and by our rules, that means he still is today.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues. First if we can use encyclopedia for notability, second if we can incorporate text.

On the first I disagree that we can assume that Britannia 1911 uses the same criteria of notability as we do. At the time it was focussed on minor British personalities and does not necessarily give the sibstantial coverage we need.

But even if we do accept it as a reliable source to show notability, we need at least 2 others.

On the second issue, I do not believe we should be "incorporating text" from other encyclopedia even if it is from 1911. JMWt (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Looking at Google Books, it looks like Blakesley was frequently quoted back in the day: [42] That page of search results doesn't establish notability but it does indicate that Blakesley was a 19th century "influencer".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make interesting points -- I'll come back to them tomorrow. I appreciate your thoughtfulness about our content.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote letters to newspapers. If that is the criteria for notability, there are hundreds perhaps thousands of others who could be included on the same rationale. JMWt (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can presume that any article in the 1911 can have an article here. It's no strecth to imagine that there is a second reliable source about him somewhere. In addition, deans are generally (but not necessarily) notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest), for example, and the Dean of Lincoln article: we have an article on every Dean since 1722. But he would possibly be notable just for his works on Aristotle and Herodotus. St Anselm (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of priests below the level of Bishop have been deleted at AfD recently. Fwiw. JMWt (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this is the same person [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open your link but there is also a substantial section on someone who sounds like the same person in this book.

I appreciate it appears that I'm now arguing against my own nom, but sometimes it is worth continuing to look for sources. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like a SNOW. How do I withdraw a nom? JMWt (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just say that you withdraw, and someone else will close it. St Anselm (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I withdraw JMWt (talk) 17:27, 10 November 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 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just Visiting (band)[edit]

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

None of the information in the article is cited, completely fails WP:BAND, has no WP:SIGCOV from external sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided and it is hard to find anything in Google due to do commonality of the name. Royal88888 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 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!} 08:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X-Arcade[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, lacks any WP:SIGCOV other than two dubious gaming magazine articles DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by dubious gaming magazines you mean Pcmag and IGN both have been deemed reliable by wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. ~~I’m not sure if that is enough to keep the article but thr sourcing appears to be fine unless I’m missing something~~.--67.70.101.104 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the 2 reliable sources already in the article, there's an additional 2 reliable source reviews by Joystiq (now hosted by Engadget): [44] and Nintendo World Report: [45] --Mika1h (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combining the sources in the article plus the ones added in this discussion means we have four wources deemed reliable by the wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources which should be enough to avoid deletion.--67.70.101.104 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 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 05:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WQDD-LP[edit]

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

This radio station was silent even before it shut down, no evidence online that it even existed other than FCC filings DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick search of records show this station was off the air more than it was on. It's original license to cover is listed as 11/28/2006, it went silent a day later. I can't say for certain if it ever launched. It supposedly resumed operations on 05/31/2007 only to fall silent again on 03/17/2008. This pattern of silent for months, on for a few days, then silent again would repeat over and over and over until 07/09/2015 when when it's final license to cover was requested to be cancelled, that took place on 07/13/2015. There is a Special Temporary Authority filed in 2016, but it was never acted upon by the FCC. The callsign and license were officially cancelled on 07/13/2015, not in 2016 or 2018 as the article states.

Beyond this, I can find nothing regarding the station outside of Wikipedia mirrors and FCC documents. Nothing on Golden Age Communications either. The addresses for the station, in FCC documents, all track back to residental homes. In short, I don't think this station ever existed outside of paper. Delete per GNG and former NMEDIA rules, while didn't allow for this kind of page in the first place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent July 2015 dating for the license cancellation that might appear in certain FCC searches appears to be little more than a quirk in FCC's CDBS database with regard to reflecting these cancellations; that was actually when a frequency change from 93.5 to 107.9 was licensed. The station itself has its "license cancelled" status dated June 28, 2018. The owners (theoretically) pulled the plug for financial reasons in September 2016 (this is the aforementioned STA request), the FCC informed the station in May 2018 it was on the verge of losing its license for not resuming broadcasts within a year, and a lack of response led to the license being canceled that June.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch: Thanks for the corrections. When the FCC switched from CDBS (the old filing system) to LMS (the new one), things got lost, messed up, etc. Since that's probably what happened there. Again, thanks for the correction. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is definitely a leftover article from the days when we were so lax on notability for broadcast stations that we were creating stubs on pretty much any licensed facility, regardless of whether there was anything else we could even verifiably say. The GNG requires much more significant coverage than could possibly be provided by FCC records, of course, and even the NMEDIA essay's old overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources (though again, enforcement of that was not particularly stringent for too long). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of this stub back in those more lax days, I have no quarrel with this nomination, especially given current standards. Note for the nominator for future, though – it's generally considered good form to notify the article creator and any significant contributors to the article about the nomination on their talk pages. Mlaffs (talk) 23:17, 10 November 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw my Nomination (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Wahs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All 3 sources listed are Unreliable, Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:NGEO. (Second Nomination) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Yemen. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its an administrative unit which are generally presumed notable even if sources currently in the article are unreliable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Fails WP:NGEO "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"

Fails WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG, and even then it would only be presumed notable.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would an 'Uzlah not be notable? Schwede 66 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:GEOLAND which is our WP:SNG Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails WP:GEOLAND, and it says Presumed and WP:GNG still applies and states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG & WP:GEOLAND, and even then it would only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGamerBoy360 You misunderstood what @Schwede66: said, - they stated that Al-Wahs is a 'Uzlah our article calls it a sub-district. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i deleted that part but the fact is it still fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, & WP:GEOLAND. & even if it didn't fail them it would still only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as explained above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no it does not, WP:GEOLAND states the following: "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presumed notable is notable; recognized as a legal place and is populated. Source is not merely a map, so meets WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notable is NOT notable See this

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and it doesn't even have "Significant coverage in reliable sources" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The implicit deletion reason here is WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that this article's subject fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline (emphasis mine). In this case, we have a very simple set of facts: this is very clearly a geographical entity, and the relevant SNG is WP:GEOLAND. What we have here is quite simply a legally recognized populated place, so the relevant notability criterion is met, and there is no good policy basis for deletion that has been presented. That there is news about events that have happened here (for example, coverage of a murder in the town [46], [47], [48], [49]) is secondary to the fact that the relevant notability criterion is met.
Additionally, the claim that there's no significant coverage of this town seems a bit like a stretch. Even with my extremely limited knowledge of Arabic, I was able to find a digital source covering road paving in the town—I'm fairly confident that an individual with better understanding of the local language/culture and local print sources would be able to build this article out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add the sources, there is no point in mentioning them if you aren't going to add them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you add the sources I will Withdraw the Nomination. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 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 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sierra Arts Council[edit]

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

This is not a notable council, it is for a small county and has little external coverage. The article cites no sources other than its own website. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 10 November 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 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Americas Business Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, cites no reliable external sources, no media coverage of its efforts at all DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Latin America, Caribbean, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently consists of two dead links. I found some more sources, though I doubt that they are independent as some of them are copy-pasted and all of them have mission statements. Nothing about them appeared on the news either. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Cicero Allen[edit]

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

Article was moved to AfC and then accepted by the same editor, despite multiple prior declinations. There remains no real evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Within a few minutes of pointing out issues with the article and my marking it for deletion discussion an editor both removed these and also the AfD banner, without any explanation. It appears some liberties are being taken with standard protocols/codes of behavior. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, Nothing intentional, just Wikipedia weirdness. I was actively editing while you made your changes and saved ten seconds after you. I thnk a glitch with a Beta tool saved my version of our edit conflict, without notifying me of the conflict. At least, that is the only thing I can figure out. Rublamb (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, edit conflicts are not uncommon, especially on heavily edited pages like WP:ANI. Saving ones edit can sometimes result in deleting another edit made a second before yours. It looks like this was spotted and no harm was done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted it and reverted it. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless better evidence of notability can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Besides the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography entry, which cites several offline sources, significant coverage exists in these Asheville Citizen-Times profile, obituary, and remembrance, contemporary book announcement and review, and this 1997 journal article (pp. 256–257) that critically examines one of his books. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough to pass WP:BIO - Note extra sources from Hameltion above clipped and added KylieTastic (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I expanded this article in response to a request through the WP North Carolina. The nominator's complaint that the article was largely based on one source and needs additional sources has been addressed. It has now received a C-class rating from an independent editor. Allen was important in the early years of the state’s public education systems. He founded two schools (one which survives today) and was the superintendent of five school systems in North and South Carolina. He also authored textbooks, including one that was used in North Carolina for more than forty years. Notability is proved by three feature-length newspaper articles written when he was alive; these sources are not from his local newspaper but from the Asheville Citizen-Times which was/is the largest circulating newspaper in the western half of the state. Other significant coverage is an article in the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, published by UNC Press. His death was announced in newspapers across the state; two obituaries are sources, including a lengthy one that was published in the news section and another from a leading newspaper in eastern NC. Of these six sources, five meet WP:GNG as being reliable, secondary, significant coverage, and independent of the subject. In addition, these and other sources fulfill the requirements of WP:NSUSTAINED. A quick scan shows that there are more sources available, including book reviews and details of his work in education. WP:NEXIST instructs to keep articles when sources exist for potential expansion. Rublamb (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accepted this as an AFC submission because a brief look on Newspapers.com found extensive coverage of him, plus there were some decent ones present already, e.g. the NCPedia one, and then the ones I added (1 2 3). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a 495-word entry in the online Dictionary of North Carolina Biography which cites 5 other sources. None of these sources have been analysed by the nominator. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV exists Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 11 November 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. A merge could still be proposed. There is no consensus for deletion Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic (Semitic) languages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vasconic languages

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

Long article for minority theory which never saw any wide support. I don't believe a version of this article is salvageable due to how widely rejected the theory is and the fact that the theory is only being advanced by a single author. Fails WP:NOTABILITY as a standalone article, though likely warrants mentioning in Theo Vennemann's article. Essentially this is an entire article dedicated to a single rejected theory by a single author without any mainstream support. Warrenmck (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenmck (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this nomination rationale is that since the last time someone argued this at AFD in 2008, and it was pointed out that there were people independent of the creator writing about it, even if only to reject it and explain why, the world has only gained more experts covering the subject. 2 years after the AFD discussion Paul Roberge (professor of Germanic languages and professor of linguistics) gave it a detailed write-up, explaining the hypothesis and then how xe thought it was flawed, in Roberge 2010, p. 408–409 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRoberge2010 (help), for example. 1 year after the AFD discussion Marc Pierce (professor of Germanic linguistics) did a assuming-that-the-hypothesis-is-true-does-it-explain-anything paper in Pierce 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPierce2009 (help), for another example.
It isn't becoming less covered in-depth by third parties with credentials in the field, as the years go by.
- Roberge, Paul (2010). "Contact and the History of Germanic Languages". In Hickey, Raymond (ed.). The Handbook of Language Contact. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405175807.
- Pierce, Marc (2009). "Modern English key and the Problem of Loan Words in Germanic". Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics. 122: 305–310. JSTOR 41430712.

Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with this line of reasoning is the underlying theory itself is functionally static; there's no wider acceptance or development. Occasionally somoene points to it to criticize it, but WP:NOTABILITY would arguably require more than two (!) paragraphs in a text about the topic from a mainstream perspective saying "this theory exists and doesn't have wide support", which is about the sum of the mention in "Contact and the History of Germanic Languages". In fact, the mention there seems to be only to highlight that this (potential substrate) problem has existed for a while and has been tackled in several ways, by highlighting one novel approach, rather than discussing it with any serious depth. I think the suggestion below, about a possible redirect/merge to Theo Vennemann, makes more sense than an article itself. Warrenmck (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note that the previous AfD was for Vasconic languages, which is a much different thing than the current AfD even if the Vasconic substrate hypothesis has the same author as its source. Warrenmck (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. See the edit history in 2009. As well as the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to its progenitor Theo Vennemann. Curbon7 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- Sometimes it is useful to have an article on a subject such as this even if the consensus is that it is wrong. This means that the argument on the subject are available for the uninitiated to read. Such an article needs to end by explaining the arguments for the consensus view that the theory is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am bit torn here. The Insular Celtic part of Vennemann's Atlantic proposal is nothing new, as the article also states. Speculations about a Semitic substratum in Insular Celtic predate Vennemann's project of trying to relate the unfamiliar (potential traces of pre-IE languages in specific branches of IE) to the familar (attested language families, thus completely ignoring the likely fact that pre-IE Europe was home to lost language families). These earlier speculations make up a topic that is clearly notable with WP:SIGCOV (for a review see e.g. this article[50]). AFAICS, only the article Atlantic (Semitic) languages hosts at least some information about this notable topic.

OTOH, the combination of the Semitic substratum hypothesis for Insular Celtic with the assumption that "un"-IE elements in Germanic languages go back to the same substratum, that's clearly a one-scholar project that has gained much less scholarly attention than the "classic" Semitic substratum hypothesis, and also less attention than his "Vasconic" hypothesis. Vennemann's work is notable as a package, but his "Atlantic languages" aren't. So I am inclined to propose to merge the Atlantic hypothesis to Theo Vennemann#Theories, and to incubate the notable parts (about Morris-Jones and Pokorny) somewhere for a future article Insular Celtic substrate hypothesis. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keep is weak and there is no support right now for Deletion. I'd like to hear from more editors and know where Uncle G ultimately stands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced, notable if obscure topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because the theory is flatly rejected doesn't mean the article magically becomes less notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 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!} 01:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship[edit]

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

A series of game score articles that were mostly unreferenced. Some that do have sources, like the 2008 one, cited "Sligo Champion (Summer/Autumn 2008)" and "Sligo Weekender (Summer/Autumn 2008)", without other identifying details for newspaper sources (dates, pages, etc.). The 1996 one cited two news articles about manager appointment, none of which talked about the scores in the 1996 games. I could not find any online sources confirming these stats, at least not the ones that don't source back to these Wikipedia articles. The difficulty in verifying the stats makes me to doubt if each of the individual games was notable enough to have a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Football, and Ireland. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel it requires work on additional sources being added to the articles rather than deletion. Much of the source info will be hardcopy newspaper as already outlined by the nominee. MartyTheArty (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a bundled nomination like this, we need to hear from more editors, ideally some who are experienced with nominations like this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet anything at WP:NSPORT or WP:NEVENT, and coverage on newspapers at newspapers.com seems limited to routine match results. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless a one of its ~22,000 residents dedicates the time to recover those hardcopies, expansion will likely remain unviable. Extending ARandomName123's concern, any nearby coverage would be unlikely to significantly cover this sports event. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:00, 16 November 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!} 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Metzler[edit]

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

Dying while trying to qualify for the Indy 500 is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not sure if this is worth a redirect/merge to 1949 Indianapolis 500. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Motorsport, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 10 November 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.