< November 16	November 18 >

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Fourth Labs[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) 18:05, 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) 18:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portland and Western 1853[edit]

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

Article fails GNG. There are three unique references. Two are simply lists that mention the locomotive without any SIGCOV. The third source is a SELFPUB blog that also lacks SIGCOV (part of what the source is used to verify is actually referencing a reply to the linked blog post). This is a non-notable train article by an IP who has used multiple GAMING and socking tactics across multiple drafts and AfDs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Oregon. Pbritti (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not independently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like trains, this engine is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SIGCOV is clearly lacking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary of)( the parts that can be verified to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. There is no evidence of independent notability, but equally there is no reason this cannot be included as part of the broader article per WP:PRESERVE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Individual Locomotive that didn't really have a notable life. This article isn't worth keeping around at all. BigSneeze444 (talk) 20:07, 21 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!} 22:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Khodami[edit]

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

Fails notability, orphan article about a non-notable athlete, who never achieved anything special, winning medals in some random international tournaments is far from enough. Sports2021 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to have competed in any major competitions as an adult. Most of the claims of medals are either not supported by sources or the sources given don't mention him. There also appears to be no significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG and has no notable accomplishments. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:01, 20 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!} 22:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farzaneh Jamami[edit]

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

Fails notability, trying to make a resume for a non-notable person. being just a coach for a 3x3 team is not enough to make her notable. this is an orphan page. Sports2021 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think enough is done here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you probably think that way because the creator made it look like that! for example she never played for the national team, which is written in this article supposedly supported by 4 references but if you check them one by one, none of them mentions that. from what I checked she is just an assistant coach (not even the head coach) in a non-notable league. Sports2021 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I see. So can I change my vote to delete? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, just strike out your old vote (like <s>Vote</s>) and bold your new vote. It's not uncommon for editors to change their mind over the course of a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Liz As per usual, you are incredibly helpful, thankyou! I wish every editor here could be like you :) MaskedSinger (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:26, 22 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!} 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abington, Louisiana[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since 2015, and I cannot find evidence of notability as it's not even listed on GNIS. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. All I could find are junk SEO content farm sites, most of which probably get their content from Wikipedia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Abington, Louisiana. But that is not reliable. Plus the sock-puppet accounts including Futurewiki (talk · contribs) have quite a set of now-deleted bad Louisiana (and Texas) "unincorporated community" articles, and has made a habit of never citing a single source. This is not worth the time to even investigate. This isn't even a competent GNIS importer. Effectively this is a zero-context article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick look for sources turns up a few mentions of Abington as a place name, but nothing substantial, and there's next to nothing at the site now. If someone eventually finds sources in a place I didn't look, I wouldn't be opposed to recreation, but there's no use keeping an unsourced one-sentence article if we can't find them now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general, as above, found a few usages of "Abington" as a place name, but nothing substantial enough to indicate any notability as a populated place. Searching can get confused because one of the geologists, who has published research on the Red River is named Dr. Abington.

1. Google Earth - location in the middle of Red River Parish currently lacking any sign of populated place at the junction of Abbington Lane and Louisiana Hwy. 1.

2. The 1948 Coushatta 1:62,500, USGS topographic map shows loose cluster of four buildings marked "Abington" at above interesection. The 1957 Coushatta 1:62,500, USGS topographic map shows intersection still marked as "Abington" with only two buildings. The 1980 Harmon 1:24,000, USGS topographic map still has interesction marked as "Abington" and shows none of the buildings remaining.

3. Soil map, sheet 11, of the "Soil Survey of Red River Parish" by the Soil Conservation Service (1980) shows the above intersection marked as "Abington" with no buildings evident in the aerial photography. Go see Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana. and Internet Archive PDF file.

4. The 1948, 1:62,500, Red River Parish geological map in "Geology of De Soto and Red River Parishes" by the Louisiana Geological Survey also marks the junction of Abbington Lane and Louisiana Hwy. 1 as "Abington." Abington is mentioned a few times in the discussion of the geomorphology of the Red River in "Geology of De Soto and Red River Parishes" as a trivial point of reference.

5. Found, but could not access: Nichols, R.R., 1941. Locating neighborhoods and communities in Red River Parish, Louisiana.

Delete. It appears to fail WP:GNG and coverage. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:46, 24 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!} 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion, Red River Parish, Louisiana[edit]

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

This article has remained unsourced since 2013. I cannot find evidence that this is a notable place as it's not even included in GNIS. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even valueless sites like Hometown Locator don't have anything about this place. I can find (low-quality) references to a Mount Zion in Linn Parish, but nothing about this place. Delete, complete waste of space. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the GNIS record: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Mount Zion, Red River Parish, Louisiana But since (a) this is the product of a sock-puppeteer with a bad track record of (being gradually deleted) fact-free GNIS imports, and (b) the GNIS record says that this is from "The Greater Slidell Area Chamber of Commerce City Map" when Slidell, Louisiana is on the other side of the state making this look like an extreme GNIS error, or a highly erroneous map; any attempt to salvage this is an utter waste of our time. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G; the entries sourced to local Chamber of Commerce, real estate, etc. maps are some of the least reliable in the GNIS. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Earth shows nothing. Old United States Geological Survey maps going back to 1935 show nothing other than an isolated Mount Zion Church on the highway out in the country. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates pointed to the place in Winn County, but there is not much more at the Red River Parish location - a church and a cemetery, a few buildings nearby but not anything to verify this as a populated place. Peter James (talk) 17:42, 21 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 Cyanamide. ^Complex/_Rational 22:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanimide[edit]

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

PRODded by me after Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Cyanimide due to an evident lack of a consistent usage for this term in the literature, but it was dePRODded by Kvng (talk · contribs) citing WP:NOTCLEANUP. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The simplest compound of that type, according to the article, would be the dimethyl derivative but Chemspider calls this dimethylcyanamide, which I agree with. Chemspider has no hit for "cyanimide", although that's not definitive. Pubchem gives just one hit for "cyanimide", which is a synonym for N-cyanoformamide. The only reference previously in the article only contains the term "cyanoimide". I conclude that there is no such set of compounds as cyanimides. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with what Mike Turnbull says. However, I might be persuaded to change my mind if anyone can come up with some sources to indicate that this term is used in practice. Web of Science yields about 17 references, most of them old or very old, but there is one recent one from a respected journal: J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 142 (39) 16825–16841 (2020) Athel cb (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doi:10.1021/jacs.0c07726 (open access) looks like a wonderful example of citeogenesis to me. They repeatedly use cyanimide in their text but the citation #27, for example, uses cyanamide in its title. By 2020, the Wikipedia article created in 2005 would be the top search engine hit for cyanimide! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Google ngram confirms that cyanamide is overwhelmingly more common than cyanimide. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then rather than deleting, wouldn't it better to redirect this title to cyanamide? ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, provided ((R from misspelling)) is used and the hatnote at cyanamide is removed. The Wiktionary term (see below) is IMO also a misspelling. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyanamide. It seems cyanamide is the simplest form of cyanimide, where both R groups are a single hydrogen atom, so the two terms aren't identical, even if they are used interchangeably by some sources. Either way, what we have here right now is nothing more than a DICDEF, which already exists on Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyanamide as most uses in literature appear to be a mistake for this. The possible meaning as >C=NC≡N is only in one reference. I think we need to kill off the Wiktionary entry as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 20 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow is the worst thing in life ...[edit]

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

Only reference is a link that doesn't work and I don't think it's notable enough to stand on its own. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Ireland. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I found an archived copy of the source, the only secondary part of it is the introduction to the provided translation. I could not find anything else. Even Brian Ó Cuív, the translator of the poem, noted that scholars "seem to have ignored this item". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how was this considered notable and kept since 2009... Kazamzam (talk) 17:54, 22 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!} 22:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Deposit[edit]

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

Private company called Zero Deposit Limited. Reads as advertisement. Does not meet notability Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:07, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is created by someone. 10 days later, an IP from India adds significantly more content. An IP that hasn't edited since. Way too fishy. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note that we don't even have a page for its parent company. Spam. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:23, 24 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!} 22:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Yong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated, deleted, recreated and nominated again in which it somehow was kept. It fails WP:ARTIST and I can't find any significant coverage online, this is not notable enough to be kept. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and China. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any critical notice of this person; the last AfD discussion in 2012 posted a link to an artnet bio (which is now a 404), and while they do have a list of paintings at artnet using the link now given in wiki, there is nothing else. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's not nothing, but I'm not finding coverage that would meet NARTIST. I get a lot of hits for his 2019 solo exhibition (the most complete of which is this one), a full length critical essay about his works (here, unsure about RS status: this site appears self-published, but it could easily have been lifted from a real source), and his CV. Meanwhile reference two in the article is bogus, not about the subject at all, but doesn't support any prose. And I get that deletion isn't cleanup, but this article needs a fundamental rewrite not to read like an advertisement. Mainly though I'm not seeing NARTIST being met with the sources I've found, so Delete. Folly Mox (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found on the internet. I would not be able to create a passable stub on this artist. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 21 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!} 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Hoffman[edit]

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

Tagged as orphan since 2017, comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Florida. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites only one source, which is an interview with Hoffman. Of four external link in the article (one in body), two are broken links to FashionTV. The other indicates that he's a member of American Society of Media Photographers, which doesn't denote notability. A quick Google search doesn't bring up any secondary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard, Louisiana[edit]

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

Another unsourced-but-actually-from-GNIS article. GNIS's source is "The Greater Slidell Area Chamber of Commerce City Map" (1988) but old enough topos show this as "Benard". Those topos suggest that it's another rail spot. At any rate there's no sign of a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has been tagged as unsourced since 2013. The community doesn't show up in census data or other place-based searches. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The places sourced from local Chamber of Commerce maps and similar places might be some of the least reliable in the GNIS, and it's a bad sign if they may not have even spelled the name right. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to clean up these many (some already deleted) zero-source context-free substubs for Louisiana by sock-puppeteer Hissrap18 (talk · contribs) is to delete them, and let competent writers start proper articles about properly documented things in due course. Anything else is an utter waste of our time. Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. Searched Google Earth and found no roads, buildings, or other infrastructure indicative of a populated place at given location of Bernard, Louisiana.

2. USGS topographic maps - "Bernard" only shows up as a place name on 1947 Oberlin, LA 1:31680 scale USGS topographic map. No sign of infrastructure indicative of a populated place shown by map. Place name absent from 1961, Oberlin, LA 1:62,500 scale USGS topographic map and 1986, Oberlin, LA 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic maps. No sign of infrastructure indicative of a populated place shown by either maps.

3. SCS soil map - Looked at soil map on sheet 37 of "Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana" by the Soil Conservation Service (1980). It lacks any text, symbology, and visible infrastructure (roads and buildings) indicative of a populated place. Go see Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana. and Internet Archive PDF file.

4. The 1952, 1:62,500, geologic map in "Geology of Beauregard and Allen Parishes" by Holland, W.C., Hough, L.W., and Murray, G.E. (Louisiana Geological Survey) shows a place on US 165 named "Bernard" at the given coordinates. This map does not show any streets associated with it.

5. In the historic archives of newspapers.com found over 4,100 matches for "Bernard" in Allen Parish, Louisiana. Largely, the names of personsand local roads. Unable to tell if any of these refer to a populated place or not. The search for "town of Bernard" in Allen Parish, Louisiana did not return any matches. Paul H. (talk) 21:32, 21 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!} 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bel, Louisiana[edit]

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

Unsourced but apparently a GNIS dump, it appears to be a rail spot along the old MOPAC line, not a settlement Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More likely it is where the Bel Oil company drilled for oil in Clear Creek in Allen Parish in the 1950s and 1960s, or some other Bel-related thing that happened to get dotted before GNIS phase 1. Ironically, we could probably have an article on J. A. Bel/John Albert Bel and his turn of the 20th century lumber business, and later Estate and Oil companies. There are at least 2 paywalled biographies out there that can be used to start such an article off. But this isn't it, or even the beginnings of it.
The article creating account is a sockpuppet of 123lilbrad (talk · contribs), by the way, who gave us quite a few "unincorporated community"s over several accounts and whose contributions were generally substandard, to put it mildly. There is quite a lot of deleted GNIS rubbish in the accounts's deleted edits already.
Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has been tagged as unsourced since 2013. The "community" doesn't show up in census data or other place-based searches. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Earth shows nothing there. United States Geological Survey maps dating back to 1947 show a place on the highway named Bel but never more than 5 buildings. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked at soil maps on sheets 47 and 48 of "Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana" by the Soil Conservation Service (1980). They lack any text, symbology, and visible infrastructure (roads and buildings) indicative of a populated place. go see Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana. and Internet Archive PDF file.

The 1952, 1:62,500, geologic map in "Geology of Beauregard and Allen Parishes" by Holland, W.C., Hough, L.W., and Murray, G.E. (Louisiana Geological Survey) shows a place on US 190 named "Bel" at the given coordinates west of Reeves, Louisiana. Unlike Reeves, this map does not show any streets associated with it. Bel is shown as just a name on a map. This publication also makes reference to Bel Oil Corporation and a few of their oil and gas wells.

In the historic archives of newspapers.com, there are about 3,347 matches for "Bel" in Allen Parish County, Louisiana, in the "Oakdale Journal" and "Kinder Progress." The best that I can tell, they are references to persons, businesses, and local roads named "Bel." Could not find a populated place named "Bel" in this archive. Paul H. (talk) 17:22, 21 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!} 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nezpique, Louisiana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A name added from a soil conservation map for reasons unclear, as no map or aerial shows more than some random houses and such along the road. GHits are in clickbait range especially considering the bayou of the same name. Was nominated once before we understood how iffy GNIS-sourced articles could be. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one is truly ridiculous GNIS mess rubbish. It's a bayou, and we had it at Bayou Nezpique for half a decade before the GNIS importers came along. I can even guess what the map referred to in the GNIS record is. It is likely the Atlas of River Basins of the United States published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1963 with a 2nd edition in 1970. That will be what "Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Soils, Soils maps; various edition dates" is. A map of river basins had Bayou Nezpique in it, which is totally unsurprising; and thanks to a GNIS comedy of errors, here we are fixing rubbish 60 years later. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources turns up plenty related to Bayou Nezpique and nothing related to a community by the same name. This is either a GNIS error or a barely-verifiable locale, but either way it's not notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Earth shows about a dozen homes strung out along a road. Old United States Geological Survey maps dating back to 1947 nothing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As happened in the previous comments, I searched the USGS topographic map viewer, Google Earth, JSTOR, and so forth and found nothing for "Nezpique," except the hits for "Bayou Nezpique." I looked through Geology of Acadia and Jefferson Davis Parishes, (Louisiana Geological Survey) and found nothing for a settlement called "Nezpique" either in it or on its maps and text. Paul H. (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One habit by Dr. E. W. Hilgard, a geologist who published various widely read reports on the geology of Louisiana in the late 1800's that I found confusing was his habit to omit either "bayou" or "creek" when discussing Bayou Nezpique. As a result, there are places in hiss report that simply mention Bayou Nezpique as "the Nezpique" or "Nezpique" and making it ambigous as what he is refering to. Possibly someone misread one of Hilgard's references to "Nezpique" as refering to a settlement instead of a bayou. Paul H. (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 I looked at the Soil Conservation Service soil maps on sheets no. 10 and 15 of "Soil Survey of Acadia Parish, Louisiana (1962)" Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Soils and found a complete lack of either text or symbology for a town called "Nezpique." There is a complete absence of any significant cluster of structures shown on these maps at the given location for "Nezpique." The compelete PDF file, including soilmaps can be found at:

1. PDF file of "Soil Survey of Acadia Parish, Louisiana (1962)."

2. Internet Archive web page for "Soil Survey of Acadia Parish, Louisiana (1962)."

Finally, I looked at the historic archives of newspapers.com. I found 27 matches for "Bayou Nezpique" and none for a populated place called "Nezpique" in Acadia Parish, Louisiana. Paul H. (talk) 02:26, 21 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.

Mercury vortex engine[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wombat140 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure about any of the following.

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to put this, but I don't know what to do with Mercury vortex engine, and Doug Weller suggested putting it in for AfD.

Currently, it redirects to Vaimanika Shastra, which doesn't mention mercury anywhere, so that's no good. In fact, after reading the translated text of V.S. I think the "mercury vortex engine" is probably based on Samarangana Sutradhara and not on V.S. at all, V.S. makes various mentions of mercury as a component of alloys but nothing about using it by itself or about it rotating, and from the translations I've seen S.S. does, very briefly.

It seems unfortunate not to have anything on this, as a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this is a real scientifically recognised thing and it would be useful for Wikipedia to have something on it that people could find if they searched for it. I suspect that if it's deleted, somebody will just put it up again with some shouting that Wikipedia is suppressing the truth. But I can't find good sources on it, even ones saying that it doesn't exist. The places where it's widely discussed are all non-RS-type places - ancient astronaut books from small publishers, forums, YouTube videos and so on.

A search only turns up this Grunge article https://www.grunge.com/1179379/just-how-possible-is-anti-gravity-technology/ which mentions it in passing, this https://www.skyfilabs.com/project-ideas/mercury-vortex-engines which doesn't look real, this https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25242578/apollo-fusion-mercury/ which I don't think is the same thing, and this https://techiescientist.com/is-mercury-magnetic/ which seems to be about a different phenomenon, along with various YouTube videos, crackpot sources and forums which aren't usable sources.

Google Books has only assorted small press stuff.

Google News and Google News Archive add this https://thewire.in/education/satya-pal-singh-ancient-vimana-shivkar-talpade-research and this https://thewire.in/education/charles-darwin-satyapal-singh-ram-madhav .

Google Scholar has a long list of articles in Indian engineering journals, but I don't have the background to know whether the authors or the journals are reliable sources or not. One article I glanced at appeared to make the rookie mistake of confusing benzoin (the chemical name) with benzoin (the plant substance, which is mainly a different compound called benzoic acid) in a recipe for an alloy, so that's not promising.

There are frequent references to NASA working on some kind of ion engine involving mercury and possibly solar power, which the authors often seem to think is the same thing, but I'm not convinced that it is.

Possible options include:

Delete the thing as a bad job.
Redirect to Vimana#Samarangana Sutradhara, which at least makes a passing mention of mercury.
Redirect to Die Glocke (conspiracy theory), which does describe something self-explanatorily similar and seems to be the other source for the "mercury vortex engine" idea.
Add something to Vimana, Vaimanika Shastra or David Hatcher Childress saying what the "mercury vortex engine" theory is and what its status is among reputable sources and redirect to that.
Write a "Mercury vortex engine" article. Somebody else will probably have to do it if so, I'm sick of the dratted thing and I don't know Sanskrit and I don't know what is or isn't a reliable Indian scientific article and I don't have access to any of David Hatcher Childress's books (he seems to be the main populariser of this theory in English) except snippets online.

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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seems like this is the wrong venue as should be at WP:RFD JMWt (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like, I dunno how to move it, I dunno what I'm doing. Could somebody else that actually knows how to do it do it? Wombat140 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue This belongs at RfD, not AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw this on one of those hokum pseudo-history shows on History Channel, the airplane was "invented" in India before the Wright Brothers flew, but was suppressed for bla bla reasons. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte–East Carolina rivalry[edit]

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

The references present don't mention these schools as major rivals. Appears to be poorly sourced fancruft. Let'srun (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the order they're given: nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, brief mention of trying to develop an in-state rivalry, nothing about rivalry, says AAC schedule through 2026 "reestablishes some longstanding geographic rivalries and provides a foundation for new rivalries to develop" without naming any of them, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry in the text or attached video, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, source skeptical a rivalry exists ("Rivalry or not ...") but quotes one of the coaches calling it one (primary source), nothing about a rivalry, title of piece is skeptical ("Don't call it a rivalry — yet") and quotes the same coach saying it's not really a rivaly ("I hope it turns into a rivalry, but I wouldn’t quite call it that"), nothing about a rivaly just some stats, and ditto. That's it. This is clearly WP:OR, someone trying to build the idea that a rivalry exists, but the sources do not say this, and the one that seems to lean a little that direction is directly contradicted (by its own quoted source person) in the next source. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For consistencies sake, make sure you review this one too: Appalachian State–Charlotte rivalry
Delete. With only one football game having been played between the schools (and that one this fall), it is way, way WP:TOOSOON to have a Wikipedia article discussing this as one of college sports' notable rivalries. Add to that the lack of WP:SIGCOV focused on this as a rivalry. And finally, the one source in the article that mentions the issue concludes: "Don’t call it a rivalry — yet." Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 21 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!} 23:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas–Arkansas State rivalry[edit]

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

None of the references actually mention a rivalry, and there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV discussing these two teams as rivals. Let'srun (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Basketball, and Arkansas. Let'srun (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The very first reference: Demirel, Evin (3 February 2021). "Inside Story: How Arkansas State vs Arkansas Happened". Best of Arkansas Sports. Retrieved 17 November 2023. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not look like a reliable source. Conyo14 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, then perhaps you could lend a hand and find a reliable source. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be manufactured WP:OR. Teams from these schools were not playing each other in any sport until recently. The sources: First mentions nothing about a rivalry. Second is about a planned football game, the first ever between the two colleges, in 2025, and supposes that it will become a rivaly. Third mentions the word "rivalry", but in relation to other institutions. Fourth isn't a source, it's just stats from 3 women's basketball games over the years; nothing about a rivalry. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head. The football programs will meet for the first time in two years. This is not a rivalry now, and we don't use a crystal ball to predict that one will develop when the meet in 2025. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish, Cbl. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:37, 21 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!} 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wow Air destinations[edit]

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

Since the last AfD it has been determined though this 2018 RfC discussion that standalone lists of airline destinations violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should categorically be deleted. Many airline destination lists have already been deleted, and this list is no different. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iceland. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and past precedent. AryKun (talk) 17:50, 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 delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taumangyang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, maplandia is not a RS or SIGCOV. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNS is notoriously unreliable about areas that are poorly documented, and the location given is in the middle of a featureless forest. There's no evidence that the UK source is any better, and it is inaccessible anyway. IF good information does become available, someone can recreate the article, but there is no reason to keep an unverifiable article in hopes that we could eventually show that it is true. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: attempted to find this place on General Administration Department map of Chipwi Township. Official 2019 map has no mention. Nearby Injanyang Township map also has nothing. I'm inclined to believe that this village no longer or does not exist, or at least not in the location cited here EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it isn't mentioned in Burmese in the MIMU township PDF. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:53, 23 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!} 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoastAlaska[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. PROD was declined with no rationale. Let'srun (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and Alaska. Let'srun (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails on several levels. Only one source, and its the official website. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I did an internet search on this, and added sources. It's legitimate and a big-deal lifeline for public radio stations in Alaska. The sourcing is out there, for anyone who wants to dig in and do a search. — Maile (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per additions by Maile66. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NORG with sources added to the article by Maile. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:50, 22 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!} 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MRSM Kuching[edit]

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

Technically, my first impression was that this should pass, looking at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, there just aren't the reliable, quality sources to establish it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not have any reliable sources. Delete per nom. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 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 Nomination Withdrawn & Move‎. After Discussing this List I have come to the conclusion to withdraw my nomination, those who have discussed feel the page should be moved. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Miyun District[edit]

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

Non-notable long list of which only 3 entries have articles, only 3 sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Geography, Lists, and China. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability of this list extends from Education in Beijing. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" and therefore "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The set (the set being all government K-12 schools in Beijing muncipality) is discussed in Education_in_Beijing#Primary_and_secondary_education. However it is impossible to list all such schools in any single article, let alone in "Education in Beijing", so such schools are subdivided by district. By this reasoning, all lists of schools by Beijing district are notable.

Additionally, consideration needs to be given to non-English speaking areas, in which Wikipedia editors usually find it harder to find sources for (so long as it is verifiable such entries exist). The Wikimedia Foundation wants to make efforts to combat Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and so giving consideration to such topics in non-English speaking places is very, very important.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this qualifies for that, we should at least split this list to have smaller lists for each school district. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360: China doesn't have independent "school districts" the way they are in the United States. The district governments (that is, of Chaoyang District, Xicheng District, etc) operate some of their own schools, while some other schools are operated by Beijing municipality (that is, by the central government of Beijing, which is the equivalent of the provinces of China). The "List of schools in ABC district" already differentiate the former, but also include Beijing Municipality-operated and private schools located in each respective district. For example, List of schools in Chaoyang District, Beijing includes schools operated by the government of Chaoyang District, schools operated by Beijing Municipality within Chaoyang District, and private schools in Chaoyang District. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe I didn't realize they weren't set up the same, I now realize this list should be kept but I do feel it should be renamed to List of Educational Institutions in Miyun, Beijing. The Reason for that is this list includes Universities, High Schools, Vocational Schools, Special Education Institutions, Experimental Education, and Unspecified Schools. I feel that a name change would better fit the content of the list. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fine with the list including universities! (in Chinese, the word for "schools" (学校) includes universities, but in English often "schools and universities" is said as a distinct phrase, as universities are often counted separately in that language). Also, note that universities have multiple campuses, with several having campuses in multiple Beijing districts. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe

Yes I am ok with it having universities as well, but I was wondering about a name change. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in favor of a name change! "Educational institutions" is a better fit for an English page that includes universities WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe should i close this discusion as a nom withdrawn & move the page? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fine with that! (And any of the other respective pages about education by Beijing district, and education by Shenzhen district, may be moved for the same reason) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 20 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Gary's Mobile Disco[edit]

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

There's some coverage but not enough to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to Gary Owen, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Wales. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have added more sources, including reviews in several major newspapers. The play has been published by a major publisher and has had several productions. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above. Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 24 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 Michael Reaves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coruscant Nights[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possible ATDs are merge and redirect, or just redirect, to Michael Reaves. I think a merge would unbalance the article on Reaves. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Reaves: I found a few passing mentions and listicles, but nothing else exists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Reaves - I am not finding much in the way of reviews on any of the individual books or the trilogy as a whole. What few I am finding appear to be on fansites, that would not count as reliable sources. As the books are already listed on the author's article, and there really is no sourced information here to merge, simply Redirecting there would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 23 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.

Marco Vannini[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.‎ UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and professor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous deletion discussion, which decided that he met the WP:PROF notability criteria. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AfD and its consensus that he passes WP:PROF#C1. Well cited for a zoologist. Nothing has changed since the previous quite-recent AfD, and this new one does not provide any reason to overturn the previous decision. Re "Tagged for notability since 2010": the problem here is not with the article, it is with the editors who failed to remove the notability tag during the previous AfD, as there is no need for a notability tag once an AfD has been started to settle the notability of its article. I have gone ahead and removed the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)

Indeed. I withdraw the nomination. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale has been put forward in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Campfield[edit]

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. I am not convinced many oft he films he ahs been involved in are notable either. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Florida, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR. ("People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)."~~I will improve the page~~ Added a few of the numerous reliable existing sources on various of his very clearly notable films, that have been the subject of multiple reviews .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:DIRECTOR per Mushy Yank's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for giving your opinions, Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 22 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 Video Electronics Standards Association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VESA Stereo[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Video Electronics Standards Association. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 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 speedy keep (nomination withdrawn)‎. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp in Wonderland[edit]

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

It exists, but I can't find good quality sources to show it meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Anime and manga, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The talk page lists 3 reviews, all reliable per WP:A&M/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just added some sources to the article to establish that these works have been the subject of reliable independent significant coverage.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above comments, and the great work proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SELEX Galileo (Saudi Arabia)[edit]

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

Regional division of a subsidiary, not notable enough to stand as an article on its own. WP:BEFORE turns up routine coverage of the company's set up in Saudi Arabia. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Saudi Arabia, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find routine announcement-based coverage confirming continuing commercial activity by Selex ES Saudi Arabia Ltd then Leonardo SpA but neither these nor the corporate website provide strong indication that this subsidiary has attained specific notability. A redirect to Leonardo S.p.A. or Selex ES might be an alternative outcome but this old name seems relatively remote and lacking history worth maintaining. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. 15:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Kirby series. Changing the Merge target article as the one suggested in the discussion is a Redirect page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Dedede[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King Dedede

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

Like Meta Knight, I also haven't seen any sources that discuss about King Dedede other than this [1]? Reception sec are full of trivial sources that has been used. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kirby characters per nom. No prejudice towards recreation if notability can be clearly proven. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was about to boldy do it in all honesty today til I saw this was done. It's a shame too because DeDeDe's one of gaming's oldest villains and one with some actual changes to his approach over time. At most though I've found were GameRant articles discussing how often his design has been changed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kirby characters The sources in the short reception are just not enough to satisfy notability and sadly there seems to be nothing else of any significance. Fieryninja (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge I'm genuinely surprised by how little Dedede has. He seems like he would have more, given he's an iconic antagonist who's gone who tons of character development over the years, but unfortunately I just can't find many sources discussing him in depth, and what's currently there is pretty weak. I will note I did find some stuff while searching that may be worth adding in the merger.

See what went into getting King Dedede swole and how he looks without his coat in new Star Allies art - Nintendo WireNintendo Wire

HAL 'agonized' over King Dedede's design in Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe | GoNintendo

Some developmental info on the character's design in Star Allies in Return to Dream Land Deluxe, which is always a good note to have (Admittedly, the Star Allies source is weaker, but it exists)

I also found some TheGamer articles that may be useful given they do have some commentary on him. Obviously not enough to save the article, but they exist.

The Best Kirby Villains Of All Time (thegamer.com)

Video Game Villains Too Cute To Be Evil (thegamer.com)

I also went and did a Scholar check. The sources I had access to didn't really support much, but there were some I couldn't access that did mention him. There might be something there, but I don't think it'll be enough to salvage the article.

In any case, I absolutely believe this should be recreated in the future should sources come up, and if anyone finds sources during their BEFORE, I'd be happy to change my vote, but sadly I'm going to have to go with a merge on this one. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom with the presumption that it can be re-created if more coverage is written in the future. I had actually been looking at improving this article after Kirby showed up in the GA list, but a search about half a month ago did not turn up anything substantial enough for Reception. A check on Scholar and Gbooks did not find anything substantial, but there is a slim chance that something useful might show up in a print magazine considering this character has been around for a long time. But at the moment, it looks like there just is not enough significant coverage. The Night Watch (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I belive that eventualy this will pass WP:GNG so I think its best to WP:PRESERVE the page.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:21, 21 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!} 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Right in Latin America: Elite Power, Hegemony and the Struggle for the State[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, no reviews are cited and there's barely coverage that allows to meet WP:GNG. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, Ireland, and Latin America. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was only created two days ago. Have you considered adding appropriate tags to the article to give editors time to fix any problems that you have identified? The notability criteria for books states that a book is notable if it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The wikipage for the book includes two peer-reviewed articles about the book and an article published by Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, so it appears to meet the notability criteria. Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are not specific issues, but generalized ones. Even if I ask, there is no way that more sources will be generated. I've already tried looking for some per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There do appear to be a few reviews cited in the receptions section. Checking if more on JSTOR. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five minute search shows reviews in: Latin American Politics and Society, Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals Bulletin of Latin American Research, Journal of Latin American Studies. Satisfies WP:NBOOK + WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:36, 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 List of Albania women's international footballers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xhulia Xhindole[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Albania women's international footballers. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find coverage of the footballer outside of squad lists and match reports. JTtheOG (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Albania. JTtheOG (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:51, 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 delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leïla Maatouk[edit]

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

WP:BLP with no indication of notability. The subject, an Algerian women's footballer, seemingly played one game for her national team. She is mentioned in squad lists and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Algeria. JTtheOG (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seem to be a lot of cases like this where people are likely accidently using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers#International footballers without realizing that WP:GNG is requisite. Dazzling4 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:50, 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 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 11:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samajwadi Pension Scheme[edit]

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

This is a piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. However, the current state government, led by Yogi Adityanath, rebranded this program as the "Uttar Pradesh Pension Scheme." It is suggested that the page either be deleted or undergo a name change, with an impartial vote needed to decide. Charlie (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Charlie (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 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) 19:35, 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!} 22:50, 10 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!} 08:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 09:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G Square Housing Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

This article has been draftified multiple times, and moved back to the mainspace without real improvements but with a slightly different title, multiple times now. The main issue is that the sources are all press releases, none of them are independent, and the main editor seems to have a serious WP:COI and the article is far from neutral (e.g. the unsourced "pivotal moment" section). Whether the company is actually notable is hard to tell due to the proliferation of paid-for "articles" in even many of the best Indian news sources, but in that case a WP:TNT scenario would be best, where a neutral editor creates the page based on independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fram, I hope you are doing well! I'm new to Wikipedia article writing, and I want to ensure that I adhere to the guidelines, specifically avoiding any WP:COI with any company. I'm currently working on creating a Wikipedia page for a real estate company based in Chennai, India.

I initially encountered some challenges with the title due to confusion surrounding the company's legal name. In my attempt to gather information, I used Google as a source. I later realized that adding press releases might not be appropriate. However, I observed that many government department pages use press releases in PDF format as sources. This led me to include press release sources in my initial draft.

I want to assure you that I am committed to rectifying any issues with the article myself. If I cannot find reliable sources, I will refrain from including the content. I appreciate your guidance in this matter. Thank you! Ramesh Chattrerjee1998 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've trimmed back the garbage press releases; one of them in a black-hat SEO "news" site. I've looked for other sources, but this is a company that heavily buys paid placement; everything seems to be similar puffy advertorials. I would usually say move it to draft, but it's been moved around before. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello @Kuru yes there are many promotional activities has been conducted by that company through PR, still there are n number of reliable sources too, i have gathered them and i will try to cite them instead. Thank you for your contribution. Ramesh Chattrerjee1998 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editor appears to be aware of COI and PE practices, yet does not submit articles through AfC. Fermiboson (talk) 17:15, 23 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 03:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Kilton-Smith[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE yet. All of the secondary sources cited, and all of the secondary RS I could find in a WP:BEFORE search, mention her only in passing. She seems to have quite a successful career, and has worked with many notable actors, but notability on Wikipedia is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Wikishovel (talk) 11:38, 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!} 09:10, 10 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!} 08:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small nucleolar RNA Me28S-Gm3255[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. The first paper by Galardi S, Fatica A, Bachi A, Scaloni A, Presutti C, Bozzoni I (October 2002) does not mention this RNA at all. Hongsy (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources can be found. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Davidson (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Japan, United Kingdom, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article could be expanded using content from the Japanese article, but could be redirected to Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be redirected to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep change to keep based on sources found below. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep along with spouse: from Embassy magazine: "For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission". Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership; The Times, Secret of a double life; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador

Piecesofuk (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7654649.stm gives significant coverage as well. Those who didn't say keep, please look over the coverage found and state if you changed your mind or not. Dream Focus 21:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Career British diplomat, sourced and to the point. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Carter (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Thailand, France, Germany, United Kingdom, England, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:BIO. Oppose redirect as a very common name. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep change to keep based on sources found below. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep along with spouse: from Embassy magazine: "For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission". Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership; The Times, Secret of a double life; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador Piecesofuk (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review recent sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep career diplomat. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I support keep there is no inherent notability in being a career diplomat. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough here for me to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:14, 20 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. No comment since the last relisting so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussion about a possible Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Riana Agustina[edit]

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

Although tragic, I am not sure this is for wikipedia under WP:NOTNEWS. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Indonesia, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRIME. No indication of lasting significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe we can keep it. The issue is that not enough sources were added in the article. The case itself garnered quite the attention, plus it is one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore court history. At most I think it needs improvement --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=Riana+Agustina+murder+

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=%E6%9E%97%E4%BA%9A%E6%88%90+%E8%B0%8B%E6%9D%80+%E5%A6%BB

I also found newspaper archives of the case. It is quite a lot of coverage, considering the rarity of a wife abusing her husband, and mostly such cases of spouse killing often involve husbands abusing wives before the wives killing their spouses. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005. The crime was used as an example in a 2021 piece by The Straits Times on how the police handles stand-offs [2], and was also referenced as a precedent in the sentencing another case [3], but that's pretty much it. S5A-0043^Talk 01:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - though not much international attention it seems to have received plenty of national. Sources are ok. Article standard is good. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Inexpiable (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Today source dated 13 October 2006 says it was "a rare move in judicial history, the Court of Appeals sent a case back to the High Court for the trial to be reopened", which could make the case notable. But does it? We have the 'word' of one tabloid newspaper. Unable to access the New Paper source but note it's a tabloid. Quite a bit of the article is based on transcripts of the court cases, which are primary sources. The events immediately leading up to the killing have been presented in the article as if they were straight facts rather than what they actually are which is the accused's version. The Straits Times has a brief resume of the case as a notable example of a police stand-off, helps a little with WP:NSUSTAINED but on its own is not enough. ~~Leaning redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 unless additional reliable sourcing found.~~ Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, don't redirect as the narrative in the list of major crimes is sourced just from the transcripts and there's no inclusion criteria specfied for that list. Rupples (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is some discussion/commentary on the facts of the case or the sentence or the implications of any precedent set or public reaction. All I can see in the sources provided is standard reporting that doesn't fulfil WP:INDEPTH and WP:LASTING. Rupples (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its relevant as a case that resulted in one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore legal history.

WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009). Simply does not meet WP:NEVENT (parent of NCRIME) as it lacks WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH and WP:EFFECT. If merge is not accepted, please consider my !vote as one for Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the comment above this seems fine. Horrible crime, but not much extensive coverage of it having set any sort of change in public policy for example. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source. The case is referenced in this book from 2013 [4]. Could imply a degree of notability; however, access to the book is restricted. Rupples (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 as a long paragraph on this event was put in there after this article was nominated for deletion, so don't see the benefit. If the level of detail already in the proposed target page is acceptable, is it not preferable, if Wikipedia is to have coverage in excess of a sentence or two of this case, for it to be presented in the much more readable and clearly formatted manner of this article? If it is, then keep, eventhough notability is borderline. If such level of detail is unwarranted, redirect to the proposed target and shorten the overlong paragraph there. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 10 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!} 08:01, 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 Castilian War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kota Batu (1578)[edit]

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

This article was created without citations. I moved it to the draftspace for incubation. After a brief period of andditions and the draft being declined by two editors (including myself), the article's creator appended a handful of citations and moved the article back to the mainspace. I can find no indication of significant reference to the battle in any of these sources besides one blog post. Additionally, at least one of the sources appears to be a middle school-level textbook. Much of the information in this article is not cited to any reference. I don't think this is a hoax so I think deletion back to draft is probably the best option. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Brunei, Philippines, and Spain. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come articles like Brunei People's Awareness Party can get away with it before? its has literally no effort putting on the article? it totally ridiculous. Battle of Kota Batu (1578) at least had effort put into it. Meanwhile Brunei People's Awareness Party has zero effort. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Castilian War article, when being made. Only had an INFOBOX. only in 22 September 2007 it had context. They didn't even had REFERENCES. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Battle of Kota Batu (1578) was also MARKED as a Stub. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Other Stuff Exists. Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good citations on Bruneian history are sadly hard to find. The current text is written with a slant, but the core details seem roughly right. This source (pp. 16-17) provides a ship number of 30 to 40, and provides a bit more political background, but devotes no time to this battle itself. It doesn't refer to "Kota Batu" but simply "Brunei", but it's clearly the same place. It gives a similar number of cannons (62, article has 64). This source (page 30) mentions Seri Lela and Seri Ratna, but otherwise skips right through this period. (Both sources are notably reasonably old at this point, reflecting the difficulty of finding information.) Given the current paucity of sources both here and at Castilian War, corresponding to a very short length in each case, I would suggest redirecting to Castilian War, merging The Battle section and the Aftermath detail. CMD (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on and writing Brunei wikipedia articles for a year now and I do agree that sources for the Bruneian Sultanate era are indeed very hard to come across, and are hardly reliable or valid with many different sources giving different informations for the same topic. This convinced me to stay away from writing articles of that era as it could be challenging to fight for. With how this article stands, I can only give my best of luck to justify its existence on Wikipedia. Please do not be discouraged from writing future articles, other topics from the 1900 onwards are much easier to start from and more likely to be accepted (if done correctly). DuckieWackie (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to subject matter experts here. I consider redirect to Castilian War a good solution, per CMD's digging. Thanks for adding your two bits, too, DuckieWackie! Your work in a poorly illuminated corner of history is a credit to this project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am confused with the "62, article has 64" part. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source said there were perhaps 62 cannons (although it notes this was not a count from during the battle). The article says 64, citing "Lloyd, Yeo (2010). Explore Social Studies...p. 39. ISBN 978-981-280-979-7" whose existence I cannot validate. CMD (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Kota Batu (1578) article said 62 Cannons. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, yes, but not in the text of the article: "Bruneian defenders were already outnumbered the Bruneians which had only 64 cannons". ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was accidentally Syazwi Irfan (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are we gonna delete (or draft) it or not? Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the name to Siege of Kota Batu as it was a siege (of course.) Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:12, 9 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) 02:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Battle of Kota Batu (1578) to Siege of Kota Batu (1578). As its siege rather than a battle. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move. Please do not move articles that are being discussed at an AFD, it complicates the discussion closure. After it's closed, feel free to move the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a topic in the main article. it should be here. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should talk about the article and not moves. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about article moves because you mistakenly moved the article. Now the discussion can return to notability and sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. The sourcing just isn't there. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has at least three sources that are scholarly and directly relevant which is enough to support the article. I don't see how deleting or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, and draftify is for improvement when the article seems ready for mainspace as written. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that other material cited in the article does not actually verify the content of the article, so we are partially relying on AGF under those rocky circumstances to believe there are academic SIGCOV sources on this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misreading that, it feels like it falls under WP:DINC, or it's WP:BABY writ large. If instead you mean that the subject meets GNG only by inflating the attention that the sources pay to this event, I would still !vote to Keep. I think it would be wiser to err on the side of WP:NOTPAPER and give the benefit of the doubt. To clarify what I said above, I don't see how deleting this entire article or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, even though the article could certainly use improvement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in can you or @Syazwi Irfan point to a reliable source that has written in-depth about the event? I struggle to understand how, for an example, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, covers it as at least according to outline it begins in the 1800's but this event occurred in 1578. Some details about what the sources actually state will be helpful. Also @Chipmunkdavis states there is one source they can't find evidence it exists and @Pangalau states reliable sources largely do not exist covering the time period. S0091 (talk) 21:43, 14 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!} 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castilian War per CMD's argument. Not notable in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 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. ✗plicit 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Weisman Cairo[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement (and just like their website), listing cases they have won. The article's sources are not WP:SIGCOV, as they are primarily about the cases themselves, not the law firm. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clearly an advertisement. Notability not justified. Dan Leonard (talk) 01:14, 13 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 07:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Have nothing else to add. Pitiful excuse of a page. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 20 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 07:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyana Paravaigal[edit]

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

Searched, cannot find any third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alb Thomas[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. stub on an unnotable sportsperson. ltbdl (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. ltbdl (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep on a first pass this extensive contemporary analysis by Andrew Gigacz would differentiate Thomas from the morass of obscure VFL footballers. – Teratix ₵ 10:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With such a common last name that's also a first name, he's a bit of a nightmare to research on Trove. – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the coverage already mentioned in Gigacz's analysis ([5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10]), I've tracked down a picture and discovered he was named as an emergency in a combined Junior Association team. – Teratix ₵ 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources found by Teratix, that's enough for me to show he has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 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 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 07:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kolonia[edit]

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

Another US embassy article. Sources 1 and 2 are primary, and sources 3 and 4 are not even about the embassy. fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 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 keep‎. which is influenced by the nominator withdrawing their proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Family[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2015 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, Korea, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or draftify~~. Need multiple sources for notability. Flurrious (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think due to generic name of show, there seem low coverage in English. In native language, shows seems notable.--AAonlyA (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to vote keep, but please tell us more. What sources in Korean suggest notability? Ko wiki article at ko:용감한 가족 is no better than what we have. The only source there is the link to a minor news outlet (ko:OSEN, no en wiki article) about actor joining the show [11]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my comment above. Weak b/c I did not do a BEFORE (if sources exist they exist in Korean). We need a Korean BEFORE before we can really make a decision here, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:04, 2 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!} 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One source in Korean (see WP page in Korean for link) at Osen (reliable) describing the program and some participants a little bit more extensively than the one source on the page. At the very least redirect to List of programmes broadcast by the Korean Broadcasting System (where it is not yet mentioned). See also: Other source in English and various sources in Korean on the Spanish Wikipedia article, fwiw.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporating sources from the Spanish Wikipedia article ought to be enough for notability. Flurrious (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flurrious, are you still arguing for draftification then? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the citations to the English page. Flurrious (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article appears to meet WP:GNG with the additional sources. Tollens (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:03, 20 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 Ariel Rivera#Albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph (Ariel Rivera album)[edit]

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

Article challenged for sources since 2006. I can't verify its Gold album claim as PARI doesn't have this record. Alternatively, redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 06:51, 8 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!} 02:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The project was rated 1 and half out of 5 (3 out of 10) by Allmusic and there's also a review from stuff here, other than that I could not find anything. WP:AtD, redirect to the performer, please ping me if sources possibly from archives are presented. dxneo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:33, 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 Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPAtite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Previously deleted, but recreated DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums: Previous AfD presented a handful of announcement articles from what I take to be reliable sources (including one from JazzTimes which unfortunately appears to be permadead). It's not bad, but personally I don't think announcement articles alone should be enough to keep an article, no matter how many you pile on, since they usually just say the same thing adapted directly from a press release. Couldn't find any more substantial coverage. Not every release by notable artists deserves its own article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:46, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of private schools in San Jose, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The private schools in this town are not uniquely notable. Incomplete and uncited article. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a list of nine Wikipedia articles. Articles are assumed notable until deleted when it comes to list inclusion. Basically, it is just a category in list form, and those are usually kept per WP:NOTDUP. If it drops down to below four or five entries, then I would probably support deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the purpose criterion of NLIST as a navigational list. —siro χ o 05:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 9 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moral delete (or redirect to the category page, since this has nothing beyond a bare listing) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. No navigational purpose is served by its existence. Why can't public and private schools be on the same page? Why make a list at the city level instead of the county level? Too many arbitrary decisions to warrant keeping. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of schools in California All of these wouldn't fit well on a single page. If the private and public schools in a county fit together, then by all means merge them. Dream Focus 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful navigational aid. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 22 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 03:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Youth Europe[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, a free web host, a mirror of an orgs own website or a link farm. Lacks independent reliable sources. Content is loosely paraphrased from the orgs own PR, added by a SPA. Even if there is some notability here this is not the page to have, blow it away and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Europe, Finland, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage to satisfy GNG/NORG about this ceiling organization in specific, even if (at least some of) the national member organizations themselves have been covered in press. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a promotional article. --Kammerer55 (talk) 16:47, 20 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 Cyber resilience. ✗plicit 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberworthiness[edit]

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

I don't see a need for a standalone article apart from cyber resilience. The context is lacking and this seems like an unestablished Australian? neologism. TadejM ^{my talk} 02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cyber resilience. I did find this paper: [12] and some conference proceedings mentioning the word. It seems to be mostly used in military contexts, in Australia, so it might be a distinct enough topic (or have distinct enough usage) to mention in the cyber resilience article, but probably isn't worth its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WeirdNAnnoyed. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Traue[edit]

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

The subject appears to have led an unremarkable life. Most of the sources are either self-published or include a passing mention of the subject. ONZM is a relatively low-ranking national award. The article fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Zealand. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was chief librarian at Turnbull (1973–1990) and that gives a high enough profile that he'll get over the GNG bar. Those chief librarians get an entry (usually, at least – haven't checked them all) in the Who's Who in New Zealand (e.g. his predecessor is included in the 10th edition), and that inclusion is generally considered enough to meet GNG. Traue is listed in the 11th edition of this work, but interestingly, he was the editor for that edition, hence this aspect isn't quite as clear cut. Either way, The Press is now online until 1989 and that'll provide some online sources for Traue. Schwede 66 02:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As suggested by Schwede66, I've done an initial search of the Papers Past records under both Jim Traue and James Traue. Most of the hits for Traue are him speaking on behalf of the library, e.g. to talk about library acquisitions, rather than coverage about him as the subject. However, there are some relevant sources, which I've added to the article. Chief librarian of the Turnbull is a notable position, given that it was in effect the national research library of New Zealand for many years (and still is today, as part of the National Library of New Zealand), and to have held that position from 1973 to 1990 is impressive.

I'd expect that he is covered extensively in the 1995 book Turnbull, A Library and Its World by Rachel Barrowman; although I don't have access to this source at the moment, this Evening Post review accessible via Proquest notes that Barrowman covers three phases of the library's development: "The third [phase] saw Jim Traue fight hard to transform the Turnbull into a research institution and to stave off the worst excesses of the National Library, to which the Turnbull had undergone a shotgun wedding."

I can see why it was nominated for deletion in the present state, but do think the subject is notable. I've done a little bit of work on the article and hope to do more. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - listed in Who's Who in New Zealand, recipient of ONZM, so meets WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 and 3. IdiotSavant (talk) 09:08, 22 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 Southern California Railway Museum. ✗plicit 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe 108[edit]

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

Tagged as needing additional citations since 2018 because it has only once citation (which is broken). This does not seem to have independent notability. I suggest first deleting it and then redirecting to Southern California Railway Museum. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. No evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the museum per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:20, 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. ✗plicit 03:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnea Jaffa Lande[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unfortunately the last nomination in April received no input apart from the page creator. My concern from then still stands: I can't find any sources that indicate that WP:CORP is met. SmartSE (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. SmartSE (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is entirely to a JD Supra website; nothing we can use for sourcing. Routine announcements used to build the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think "Barnea Jaffa Lande", or "Barnea Law", passes WP:NORG. Few law firms in smaller countries do. Lawyers quite a few. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this list from 2023, the law office ranks 14th in Israel. Not small, not huge. gidonb (talk) 15:33, 22 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 03:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Banda[edit]

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

The subject, a Zimbabwean women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how he meets NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican supercentenarians[edit]

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

Contested PROD: This article is unsourced, and at present, none of the individuals on the list is notable enough to warrant their own articles. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Jorge Duran Coral: If you (or anyone) had access to sources for this, it would fit in well with the others on Category:Supercentenarians by nationality. @Significa liberdade: not everybody on the other lists has their own article, but it would be helpful if at least few on this one did. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Maile66: Perhaps not everyone will justify the creation of an article, but everyone on the list requires a citation of a reliable source to support their inclusion. At this time, this list has none. General Ization ^Talk 00:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This topic is not terribly notable and as stated above, nobody on the list is important enough to have their own article. The article is not supported by any reliable sources. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the people do not have BLP articles, fails WP:GNG and can be merged to List of supercentenarians. I don't see said list being beneficial in the future. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The claim none have articles is false: María Capovilla, Emiliano Mercado del Toro, and Juan Vicente Pérez are in English whilst Francisca Celsa dos Santos and Inah Canabarro Lucas have sourced articles in Spanish. As such, sources are readily available; others can be found to include those without articles [13][14][15][16][17]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this deletion is also contested here. How does this list meet, or doesn't meet, WP:NLIST guidelines? Also, please do not move articles to a different page title in the midst of an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails as a navigational list because the only blue-linked entries are people notable only for their age, and there are only a very few of them. It is likely that readers looking for these people are interested in supercentenarians in general; such readers would be better served by an article listing supercentenarians in general. In fact we have a list at List of supercentenarians but we've chosen to stick to people notable for other reasons besides age. And navigational lists have to navigate to articles, which isn't likely to be possible for people who haven't done wiki-notable things beyond living long lives. Fails as a stand-alone list because although the press from time to time likes to write articles about people surviving to great age, implying that supercentenarians might be a an independently-notable set, (1) these articles aren't focussed on Mexico (except in Mexico), so again a global list would make more sense than a Mexican list; (2) they are often borderline, rather trivial interest articles analogous to those on particularly tall actresses, or worst seaside towns. (3) the press tends to write about old people rather than specifically supercentenarians. Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: After reversion to the proper content, Mexican supercentenarians alone are not notable. The creator is also blatantly attempting to circumvent procedure. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 00:35, 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 Southern California Railway Museum. ✗plicit 03:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 3100[edit]

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

This appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. All publicly available references used in article do not directly address "Southern Pacific 3100" in anything more than a passing way from my analysis. I would suggest that GE U25B is the notable topic and that this should be first deleted and then set to redirect to that. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern California Railway Museum. Not independently notable, but a useful redirect to the museum. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the museum per nom. Does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Isn't notable enough to warrant an independent article. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not inheritable notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:50, 23 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 kept, per comments by kwami, JBW and Uncle G. ‎. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless velar implosive[edit]

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

The voiceless velar implosive is used in no language, and therefore is not notable as per WP:Notability. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PharyngealImplosive7: It is not obvious to me what part of WP:Notability you think supports your claim that a sound that does not constitute a phomeme in any human language is not notable. I am not arguing the opposite, just asking you to flesh out your argument a bit more explicitly. The article cites (albeit incompletely) at least one scholarly work describing the sound, suggesting that it might satisfy WP:NPOSSIBLE. Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is not about WP:Notability, but it literally is not used in any language and has one source which is a book about phonetics, so of course it contains info on it. And if this article is allowed to not be deleted, we should make other drafts such as Draft:Voiced bidental fricative actual articles. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. One mention in one source does not create notability. The policy requires multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does note that it is a sound made by some humans to imitate the "glug glug" sound, so it is in use and the article itself is useful. Expand and rewrite if necessary. Do not delete or merge. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I checked the source (Pike Phonetics) on archive.org and it never mentions the voiceless velar implosive. Also the source was made in 1943, so we would need some indication that this dated study is not wrong.
  PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pullum & Ladusaw 2013, p. 100 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPullumLadusaw2013 (help) gives this a lengthier discussion than our article does, and ironically provides a source for parts of the article that cannot possibly be supported by a 1943 source. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pullum, Geoffrey K.; Ladusaw, William A. (2013). "Hooktop K". Phonetic Symbol Guide. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226924885.
Delete: a sound not used in any language and having one old source isn't notable.
24.4.108.69 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You edited this right into the middle of a list that has a citation of a second, not nearly as old, source. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Still, it isn't notable because it's used in no language. No source can change that unless they prove it is inside a language. 24.4.108.69 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO any sound that receives an IPA letter is notable for that reason alone, but we do have attestation in language. Bennett et al (2023) Phonetic variability of glottalized stops in Uspanteko reports one token of [ɠ̊]. They find that the labial varies as [ɓ̥] and [pʼ], and the uvular as [ʛ̥] and [qʼ], and that the velar is nearly always [kʼ], but not 100%. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help expand the article with this source? 24.4.108.69 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There are similar reports for other Mayan languages, so Uspantek is probably not unique, but regardless it appears to be an extremely rare sound lexically. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (See also my comment above.) Pullum and Ladusaw (hat-tip Uncle G) suggest that the sound sometimes occurs in American English, and Bennet et al. (hat-tip — kwami) describe an occurrence in Uspanteko, and its difference from a velar ejective. The sound is apparently not phonemic in any described languages, but that does not mean that it is never used; compare Phoneme versus Phone (phonetics). In addition to Pike 1943 (hat-tip PharyngealImplosive7 for the online version), these sources should be cited. The article should also note that the phone is rare and not known to be contrastive (as opposed to the ambiguous "not used"), but AfD is not for cleanup. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 13 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!} 00:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the nomination and the subsequent "delete" comments are based on the premises that the sound is not used in any language, and that it is mentioned in only one source, but both of those are false. The current version of the article says, apparently correctly, "A phonemic /ɠ̊/ has not been confirmed for any language ... In Uspantek, and perhaps other Mayan languages of Guatemala, [ɠ̊] is a rare allophone of /kˀ/." (My emphasis.) Saying that a sound is used in languages as an allophone but not as a phoneme is not the same as saying that it is not used in any language, even if we ignore the further information that it has been "claimed" as a phoneme for Lendu, but disputed. The sound exists, it is used in some languages, whether as a phoneme or as an allophone, and, contrary to what has been said by those advocating deletion, it is covered in several sources, as shown by Kwamikagami and Uncle G. JBW (talk) 21:36, 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 keep‎. The overall consensus is there is sufficient sourcing available to write an appropriate article on this event. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of February 25, 1914[edit]

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

Modern eclipses are routine, predictable events of little significance; there is no special notability guideline or policy indicating that they are automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I think they should therefore be judged according to WP:NEVENT, and unfortunately most Wikipedia articles for eclipses, including this one, fails the test:

WP:LASTING: It was a routine event. No wars happened because of it, no emperor was deposed for it. It happened as predicted (prediction of solar eclipses being a nearly perfected science even by then), people noted it, and then promptly forgot about it. All coverage of it would be from around the time it occurred on, other than entries in eclipse databases. It finds its place in various databases of all solar eclipses that ever occurred.

WP:GEOSCOPE: It was probably covered internationally, in all the countries the eclipse happened in/passed through. But this is routine stuff: the local press of various countries makes note of the solar eclipses that pass through their territory.

WP:DEPTH: There is nothing much indepth to say about most eclipses unless they precipitate some other important event in history; this is specially true for eclipses in modern times, as events where people claim them to be a supernatural sign or prophecy affecting worldly matters anymore.

WP:DURATION: All coverage of it, aside from what are essentially database entries, happened around the time it occurred.

WP:DIVERSITY: It was probably covered by a variety of sources, but nearly all coverage would be of the same type.

WP:ROUTINE: Perhaps no other class of events are as certain and accurately predictable as solar eclipses; it certainly seems like "routine coverage of planned events".

I'm bringing only a single article to the AfD to not be too disruptive, but the consensus on this would be relevant for many other eclipse articles in Category:Annular solar eclipses, and possibly other categories. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the wealth of astronomical information available about solar eclipses it is valuable to keep them. Regarding WP:GEOSCOPE, eclipses almost always receive coverage by local news when they occur. Eclipses are not WP:ROUTINE, each one has a unique path, duration, etc. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the map, this annular eclipse passed over Antarctica and ocean, so it wouldn't have been widely observed, if at all. I could find no evidence of a solar eclipse expedition, which might otherwise have made at least slightly notable. It could probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Praemonitus (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular eclipse had no significance, and received no news coverage. Owen× ☎ 10:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine and unlikely search term. AryKun (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. This event was observable only in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, with some partiality in a sparsely populated part of South America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the last couple weeks I have been on a project to expand some of these stubs with additional sourcing; in fact, the reason I had this article open was because I had just finished with 1913 and was moving onto 1914. I guess we will have to see, but I am quite opposed to the sight-unseen assumption that it "received no news coverage". There are very few eclipses for which this is the case, including ones that are "stupid" or "pointless" et cetera. I will have to go check my resources; I've found sources for about thirty or forty of these eclipse articles so far, and for some it is harder than others. jp×g 🗯️ 22:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @TryKid, DirtyHarry991, Praemonitus, OwenX, AryKun, and LaundryPizza03: per below jp×g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: this was the article being commented on prior to here, hence the ping. jp×g 🗯️ 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the seven reports on two continents I was able to find for this expansion. The nominator mentions WP:NEVENT, but the very first bulletpoint of NEVENT is the general notability guideline. Looking at this article, I can assess it thus: is there significant coverage? Yes, since all of these seven articles are about the eclipse. Are they reliable sources? Yes, they are all reputable newspapers, and they're writing based on the observations of others. The NASA source is from 2004. Are they independent of the subject? Yes, I would be quite shocked to find out that they were writing these results as a result of payola from Big Moon.

Is the coverage "routine"? Well, in a sense, yes, but so is all coverage of anything -- it's "routine" for newspapers to write about the person who is elected president, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about when a tornado destroys a city, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about every single time two countries go to war, et cetera. Something does not have to single-handedly turn the wheel of history to be notable; there is no part of notability guidelines that says "emperors must be deposed". I don't know what the coverage being "of the same type" means. I don't think it makes sense to look at something that was covered extensively by reliable sources, is still mentioned in the context of historical eclipses, and say "well passing GNG doesn't count because the thing was stupid". jp×g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, GNG requires that the sources be secondary. News reports published near the time of the eclipse do not constitute "secondary sources", they are primary sources reporting on how to best view the eclipse or what others saw during the eclipse and so on. The NASA source is essentially a database entry, the database includes a chart of every eclipse that ever occurred within some time period. It is not significant coverage. Nearly every eclipse article on Wikipedia relies on this type of sourcing, recounting what various news papers said about an eclipse around the it occurred. None pass the GNG bar of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's circular logic to say that sources can't be significant coverage, because the event wasn't significant, because there was no significant coverage, et cetera. The "significant" in WP:SIGCOV does not mean "important and grandiose", it means "devoted primarily to the subject". That is to say, it's meant to exclude an article about the Tsar's ulcer that says "the surgery, which happened on the same day as an annular eclipse, went off just as elegantly as the moon across the sun." It's not meant to exclude an article about the eclipse that says "People went out to see the eclipse and here is what they said about it". jp×g 🗯️ 17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I think you misunderstood me: my contention was that the NASA entries are not significant coverage; the newspaper reports, on the other hand do constitute significant coverage, but they're not secondary sources. cf. WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I don't see any kind of "retrospective" coverage, it's the same type of report one would see any other routine event. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't really see the utility in reinterpreting the guidelines this way. There have been thousands of AfDs voted, judged and closed on the basis that verifiability, news coverage and inclusion in secondary sources suggests something is notable. But with this nomination you're explicitly setting out to go through about a hundred eclipse articles, so first of all there is a mountain to be moved: and second, why? You think they are "of little significance", okay, but there is tons of stuff on Wikipedia that is dumb and lame. The standard you seem to want to apply here, that things should be deleted unless they have some kind of perpetual worldwide relevance, is at odds with a lot of consensus and a lot of content. jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P1 suggests Wikipedia has features of almanacs. Eclipses have long been a feature of almanacs. (In fact here's an almanac listing this very eclipse [18]). Additionally, (relatedly), in response to the above, news reports about upcoming eclipses are indeed relying on scientific predictions and thus are secondary. And of course, the NASA source is indeed a strong one. Personally, I can't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting such articles, though I could see a compelling argument for WP:NOPAGE merges-in-full of these articles in some way that improves the way these are presented to the reader. A delete or even redirect to a table row leaves the encyclopedia weaker. —siro χ o 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convinced by JPxG's arguments and additional sources to change my opinion. Thank you for your work on this! Owen× ☎ 19:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not convinced by the nominator's arguments, especially after JPxG's expansion (and also don't see the sources used as primary, like Siroxo said). Definitely not convinced by the "unlikely search term" argument, otherwise we'd have to delete a better half of the Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Just the routine coverage during the short news cycle, lacking WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It didn't produce any secondary coverage (in contrast with the solar eclipse in August 1914) and being mentioned in a NASA's database doesn't mean it is notable. --C messier (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus. But I'd like to the thank the nominator for floating this AFD to be about one article rather than posting a huge bundled nomination. Let's test the waters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent nomination statement (really a redirect is fine too, but meh). Except for the recent additions by jpxg (I'll get to those in a second), this is a pure cookie-cutter article of statistics that could essentially be auto-generated from a database, every single eclipse article would be virtually identical with only the particular details of that eclipse differing. Not only that, but the vast majority of this article isn't even about this eclipse, but is just tables of other eclipses and an explanation of the basics of eclipses that has no business being in an article as specific as this. The basics of the stats can and should be in summary list-type articles; that much is perfectly fine.
But none of the keep !votes address the lack of any sustained coverage or lasting impact of this event. Adding in a couple blurbs from routine (yes, it's routine) coverage in the press of the day does nothing but confirm that yes, people knew when and where this eclipse would occur, even over 100 years ago. There's nothing even remotely in-depth about any of the coverage. The first one I checked, for example, was all of three sentences long. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are sufficient to support an article. In particular WP:V is clearly met. WP:GNG is debatable, but not really key, IMO. Since most contemporary eclipses are highly notable it makes more sense to organize our coverage so that each 20th century eclipse has its own article rather than spending time debating exactly how much news coverage is necessary to support notability. This is really just about the organization of content since the basic facts will be included in list articles about this series of eclipses either way. Removing the article leaves a gap in our eclipse coverage that is annoying to some editors bust doesn't really help readers in any way that I can see. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on contemporaneous news reports, some of which note where it would have been visible, even if only a few people would be there to see it (e.g., "Two Eclipses of Moon in 1914", The Kansas Evening Star (February 28, 1914), p. 3):

Four eclipses, two solar and two lunar, will occur in 1914. The first one of these has already performed and left the stage. Maybe you didn't notice it, but it occurred February 24. This was what is known as an annular eclipse; the moon finally seems to cover up the center of the sun, leaving a ring-like fiery border all around the former. Our moon at her distance from us cannot apparently conceal the sun's disk from sight and what is seen of his disk appears like a complete blazing circle. The eclipse of February 24 was not particularly interesting from a popular standpoint and was not to be seen in North America. The moon not only crosses the fiery disk of the sun, but also intercepts some of the solar light from the earth. Wherever this lunar shadow falls is called the "path of eclipse," and the inhabitants of that region see the moon partially or totally cover for a while the face of the sun. Our earth and moon are both in motion, particularly our earth. The widest shadow cast by the moon is only 167 miles, and accordingly, a solar eclipse can be seen only from a limited part of the world. On February 24 this lunar shadow did not fall upon North America, for the path of the annulus remained entirely within the Antarctic and South Pacific oceans. Therefore it was witnessed by the inhabitants in the southern part of Patagonia and the eastern coast of New Zealand. But though the citizens of Independence were not able to see the solar eclipse of February 24th, they will be able to see some of the solar eclipse of August 24. On that day the moon will wholly hide the face of the sun; but unfortunately this eclipse will appear to the citizens of this city only as a partial eclipse.

BD2412 T 01:51, 25 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.