< October 12	October 14 >

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

The result was redirect‎ to Classic hip hop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Hip-Hop[edit]

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)z[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to classic hip hop An utterly generic description of the format, and no regular listener is even able to tell if this is a satellite format in the first place, or they will immediately judging from it being utterly unremarkable HD Radio filler. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, couldn’t find much in search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I would redirect it to Westwood One, since it is one of their 24-hour formats (but that's just me). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Classic hip hop; there is no separate notability for the syndicated national feed, the network name is too generic that any coverage it could (but probably doesn't and never will) get would be difficult to distinguish from the overall format, and given how it is a bit too common to capitalize every word in a format name a redirect to Westwood One rather than the format itself could be misleading. (Note that Classic hip-hop redirects to Classic hip hop, so it would not be a redirect target itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to classic hip hop per Wcquidditch. Fails GNG and the name is too generic for a redirect anywhere else.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto classic hip hop.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koko Da Doll[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. This person only started receiving coverage in reliable sources after being killed early this year. The event does not show any indication of having any WP:LASTING effect. I'm not seeing anything notable here. SparklyNights 19:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Discrimination. SparklyNights 19:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(update) Keep based on Beccaynr's sources, WP:BASIC seems to be met. (Original alternative) To improve overall coverage for readers, we can merge to Kokomo City as WP:NOPAGE unless further sources are found to expand the article. However, this doesn't meet BLP1E/BIO1E - subject is notable both for death and the later wide release of the film. —siro χ o 20:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources seem to support her WP:BASIC notability before her death, e.g. AP Apr 21, 2023: "Koko Da Doll, an Atlanta woman who gained notice in a documentary about transgender Black women and the dangers they face"; Rolling Stone, Apr 21, 2023: "Koko was one of the four stars of Kokomo City, along with fellow Black trans women Dominique Silver, Liyah Mitchell, and Daniella Carter. The film, which won two awards at Sundance when it premiered in January"; Variety, Apr. 20, 2023: "Koko, whose given name is Rasheeda Williams, was a prominent transgender woman featured in the award-winning documentary “Kokomo City,”" (this source also discusses more film awards, and the planned theater release after Sundance); Hollywood Reporter, Apr. 21, 2023: "In her review of the doc, THR critic Lovia Gyarkye wrote, “Violence — both real and anticipated — is the most obvious thematic thread, but competing for space and attention is beauty.”" There is some limited additional information about her music career in Them and the AJC; her death also seems to have increased her notability, based on the secondary context in which her death is reported by multiple sources, and commentary about violence against trans people, e.g. NYT. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources, including continuing coverage, seem to further support her notability: BET Awards honor Koko Da Doll by telling her story ‘in front of millions’ (HITC, Jun. 26, 2023); Remembering the Trans and Nonbinary People Lost to Violence This Year (Advocate, May 26, 2023); and there are reviews after the documentary release in theaters with a focus on her, e.g. NYT, Jul 27, 2023: "In a tragic reminder of the film’s life-or-death stakes, one of the documentary subjects, Koko Da Doll, was fatally shot in April, just months after the film’s premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. But here, Koko brims with vitality, ambition and insight"; and coverage, e.g. CNN July 27, 2023. Some biographical coverage, based on an interview: MLive, Jun. 12, 2023. Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And she was receiving coverage before her death; because coverage of her death was so substantial, it is farther back in a search, but e.g. Variety review, Jan. 27, 2023; Hollywood Reporter review, Feb 16 2023, ScreenDaily, Jan 29, 2023; reviews after death related to the release in theaters also include LAT, Irish Times; the Guardian also notes the film was dedicated to her: From Barbie to Talk to Me, trans actors’ visibility is at a tipping point – and about time too (Aug. 14, 2023). And the film has recently been nominated for a Critics' Choice Documentary Awards for Best Documentary Feature. e.g. Variety, Hollywood Reporter. Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Akasa Air. I'll just note that while Akasa Air might not be a United or American Airlines, they are a major airlines on the West coast. But I remember the bundled AFD and so I agree with treating this article likewise to those of other airlines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akasa Air destinations[edit]

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

Per the 2018 RFC, these lists are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. This list seemed to slip through the August mass AfD of these lists. Since May, than 200 lists of airline destinations have been deleted at AfD. My redirect to the main article was contested, so here we are. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, India, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is a small airline, with not much notability seen for an independent article on destinations. However to be very honest I don't consider the 2018 RFC to be a good rationale provided for deletion on its own (though that's a separate matter I won't discuss here). S5A-0043^Talk 01:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic equitation[edit]

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

This article is covered in Ambling_gait#Tölt and doesn't have many quality sources Luiysia (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Luiysia (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently passes WP:GNG and the article is 12 years old. V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Andre🚐 00:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think a final relist will resolve this difference of opinion regarding what should happen with this article. Also having a Weak Keep and a Weak Redirect, while appreciated, doesn't reveal a strong position on the outcome of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Stokes[edit]

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep This article has the same problem as most articles about CSI characters: It's bloated and it doesn't cite enough non-primary sources. However, that doesn't mean it's not notable. Let's see what we can scare up. One on Looper that's probably more about the actors: [1]. Here we go! Looper Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, the fact that people are writing about the character in 2022, years after he was no longer on the show, suggests to me that it might be notable. That's without hitting up Google Scholar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find the second Looper source to be trivial since it's a plot summary of an episode. The first one is more about why the actor didn't appear in some episodes of the show. Sources primarily about the character written in a real-world perspective would be better here. Spinixster (chat!) 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect Agreed with nom, but the Looper article is just worthy of one source. I couldn't find more beyond this that also does not complete a routine episode recap coverage. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 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) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect We see some trivial coverage. Not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV, but enough that someone might look for it at the main topic, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. See the following sources with in-depth coverage of the character

Byers, Michele; Johnson, Val Marie (2009-08-16). The CSI Effect: Television, Crime, and Governance. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-3927-1. — this book has extensive commentary on the character
Kompare, Derek (2011-02-25). CSI. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-4152-2. — contains extensive discussion and critical commentary on the character.

Additionally there are many newspaper articles that can be used as well in a newspapers.com The rush to delete these character articles is concerning as much has been written on the CSI characters.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of linguistic prescription in English[edit]

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

Might be original research Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving @Folly Mox: Chidgk1 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Chidgk1, and thanks for withdrawing the nomination. Improvement is always a better outcome than deletion. Many articles like this are pretty easily sourceable by importing references from adjacent articles. I got the first seven citations in only an hour, but if I had just copypasted them it could have gone even quicklier. Then I got sleepy and stuck on a particular sentence I probably should have just rephrased.

There might be some OR in the article, but for that it's usually best to find a source that supports a weaker variant of the claim in question and change the prose accordingly. I think the WP:BEFORE for this nom was not really thorough. Do you have Wikipedia Library access? They have really great access to a lot of major academic publishers. Folly Mox (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fan clutch[edit]

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

Not notable - presumably it has remained uncited for years as quite rightly nobody cares about all the parts of internal combustion vehicles nowadays Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond being low-sourced do you have a true reason for deletion beyond a rubbish WP:IDLI reason? We haven't deleted the cathode ray tube article because "nobody cares ...nowadays". Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cathode ray tubes were a far more important piece of 20th century technology than fan clutches Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please state, in your own words, a policy-based reason for deletion, not that you personally dislike the existence of an engine part. Nate • (chatter) 18:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: "quite rightly nobody cares about all the parts of internal combustion vehicles nowadays"

There are >1.4 billion vehicles on the road using internal combustion engines.^[2] Fan clutches are not used on front-wheel drive vehicles, so perhaps only 400 million use fan clutches? 300 million? 700 million? Whatever the number is, globally, it's really, really big.

Presumably the people that bought and own these vehicles care about internal engines, especially when they break down and someone says they need to buy a new "fan clutch".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of reliable sources, starting with the Wikipedia Library link in the "find sources" section of the AfD template above. I added 2 to the article as external links.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 more refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references added by A. B. the subject passes the GNG. Rupples (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disease resistance in fruit and vegetables[edit]

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

Already covered in Plant disease resistance Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless parts can be cited and merged. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely unsourced, so it wouldn't be a candidate for merging with Plant disease resistance. Either it's entirely WP:OR or creating content without citing sources as a variation of plagiarism, so even if the redirect term was to be used, the article would need to be deleted first anyways. I don't see a strong need for a redirect term though given it's a bit longer and not as likely to be used compared to others in a search. KoA (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hevenu shalom aleichem[edit]

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

I'm not really sure what to make of this, it's an interesting case of a song having a credible claim of significance/impact, but no real sigcov in RS. The article creator acknowledges as much at Template:Did you know nominations/Hevenu shalom aleichem; in the interesting of settling that nom, I'll punt on the notability question to here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's been the subject of scholarly literature (Troyke 2021, Frühauf 2021), covered as significant in media (Die Rheinpfalz, Deutschlandfunk), and is published in about 30 hymnals and songbooks (multilingual and German). It's undoubtedly popular and notable, as the results from the search links at the top here (books, news, scholar) demonstrate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michael Bednarek: Troyke and the two media sources don't provide significant coverage. I can't access Frühauf, so if you want to copy and paste the relevant passage, we can take a look at that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those four sources may not individually rise to significant coverage, but they each attest to the popularity of the song. I agree with 4meter4 who points out below that the sheer multitude of mentions, also demonstrated in the search results that I mentioned, constitute significant coverage. PS: I also think that nominating this song at this time is insensitive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. There's a large number of books in google books which acknowledge it as a well known Israeli folk song of cultural importance, or mentions its performance at notable/historic events. (some examples [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] [16] Additionally, this magazine article about the song states that it is sung by Jews worldwide and this website dedicated to songs of the Holocaust calls it a "Jewish standard" and includes it in a list of songs used by the ANU - Museum of the Jewish People. The newspaper article names it as a song commonly used at weddings by American jews. This book mentions that the tune was used by Felix Mendelssohn in his Symphony No. 5 (Restoration Symphony commentary on page 25), and this book mentions the song was used in Frank Ticheli's Angels in the Architecture. The work is included on pages 8, 9, and 15 in Peace and Brotherhood as Reflected in Jewish Music: A Listing of Selected Works. National Jewish Music Council. 1959.. This book mentions the songs gained popularity among Christians after Vatican II and this book ties the work's inclusion in Protestant hymnals to a mainstreaming of Isreali culture globally in the 1970s. This book mentions the tune actually predates Isreal and it of Hasidic origin (see page 194). Unfortunately the further commentary on 195 as indicated in the index is not viewable in google books. The song is also included in the Harvard Library's Judaica Sound Recordings collection according to Violet Gilboa, ed. (1996). Judaica Sound Recordings in the Harvard College Library: Subject index. Harvard College Library. Judaica Division. p. 373. All together I think this constitutes SIGCOV collectively.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: are there a WP:THREE best? I'm not unsympathetic to the "lots of mentions=grab bag cobbled notability" argument, but there should be at least one source that goes into some detail about it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to reduce this unusual case of notability to a limited number of "best" sources misses the point of the "keep" arguments above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@theleekycauldron While normally I would agree with WP:THREE as the best measuring stick at AFD, in this case some WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied to how we interpret WP:SIGCOV. Our WP:NSONG criteria is targeted towards popular commercial music and is honestly not well designed to handle traditional songs or music that comes from a different cultural place (i.e. music that was never intended to make money but is just part of a culture and its identity). In this case, we have an old traditional song whose melody dates back at least to the 19th century and possibly earlier that has become a "Jewish standard" at cultural events such as weddings, religious services, political rallies and events, etc. on a global scale. The song is ubiquitous in Jewish communities around the world as attested to in a wide range of sources. It's inclusion in museum and library collections, its publication in not only Jewish religious publications but also Christian hymnals, its inclusion in a scholarly work by the National Jewish Music Council, its use in other works of cultural significance such as Felix Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 5, its performance at events for American presidents, the Pope, etc., its performance by professional orchestras, recordings by musicians, etc. all attest to the work's wider notability as an important musical work for its broad impact on culture and its role in Jewish culture and identity. There's not a valid argument to be made here that this song isn't encyclopedic, and the wide range of reliable RS has made it possible to write a lengthy and interesting article which is verifiable and beneficial to improving wikipedia's coverage on Jewish culture.4meter4 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (strong). Easy pass of the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It is extremely strange and troubling that a song of this stature would be nominated! Wikipedia already suffers from too many AfDs. There is no need to add baseless and chanceless AfDs to make things worse, and then argue with each respondent! gidonb (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business suite[edit]

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

Seems this term never really caught on in the sense described here though it is in the names of some products such as one from Meta Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and heavy on jargon, and it's hard to find sources that aren't talking about office space. Would be willing to reconsider if someone could find RS discussing this topic as presented in the article. WP:TNT at the very least. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject completely lacks sources as described, and as such this fails WP:GNG as written. User:Let'srun 01:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't my domain but the topic and scope seems identical to Enterprise resource planning. I'm assuming the title is riffing on common product names like SAP Business Suite and Oracle E-Business Suite. I don't see content worth merging anywhere. DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is a WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood[edit]

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

This article was originally merged here into what is now named 2023 Israel-Hamas war.

Subsequently, it was demerged with limited discussion even though a large number of editors have been commenting on the ongoing event.

The current title, subject of a chaotic current RM, is POV and since this is an integral part of the ongoing war, it should be deleted/remerged with 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Speedy Close — Title is sourced by several secondary reliable sources including Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN). The UN even said and I quote, “On Saturday, 7 October — a Jewish sabbath day, the end of the weeklong Jewish festival of Sukkot, and a day after the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War — Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel.” AfD nominator participated in the so called “chaotic RM”, stated it was POV, and is now attempting to cause disruption to Wikipedia because several editors (current solid majority in fact) say the article title is perfectly fine, especially given the UN uses it. I request this AfD get speedy closed as being disruptive in the middle of a perfectly valid requested move discussion…especially given the AfD nomination itself violates WP:NPOV with “The current title, subject of a chaotic current RM, is POV” being an opinion from the AfD nominator, who is beating a dead horse at this point. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — At the time of this message, the requested move discussion being referenced by the AfD nominator has 17 editors involved with 49 comments. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is like proposing to delete page September 11 attacks. Yes, this extraordinary attack by Hamas forces led to 2023 Israel–Hamas war (pretty much like USA have declared their "war on terror"), but the attack by Hamas is a separate well defined event, hence a separate page. This is a legitimate sub-page of 2023 Israel–Hamas war. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with rationale of My very best wishes. These are two distinct topics, and this page qualifies as a well-defined sub-page of 2023 Israel–Hamas war, i.e. "Operation AlAqsa Flood" is not synonymous with the entire war, and only describes a front/operation at the beginning of an current event/war. Although this page led to and can topically be contained within the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page, the content within that page should only contain summary knowledge of this topic because the extent of information needed to sufficiently cover this topic would make that page too lengthy. Relspas (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title of the article (Al-Aqsa Flood) is the actual name that Hamas announced for its operation against Israel, and it is the most widespread name.In most of the wars and rounds of escalation taking place between Hamas and Israel, the name of the operation is announced after a period of time, but the current title was exported from the first minutes, and it is the most widespread.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename as the Operation Overlord analogy made a lot of sense to me. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge How many sub-articles will we create when the current war has only been going on for 6 days? Hamas refers to the entire war under the symbolic name Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Dl.thinker (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military operations last for a while. Operation Overlord, one of the most famous military operations in history lasted over 2 months. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Osama Eid.--فيصل (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of course. Per above. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Speedy close. The Hamas operation is independently noteworthy and now over, while the overall war continues, so there is no sense in merging the two. There's a clear consensus in favor of Keep here (all comments to date), so I suggest a speedy close for this. Jpatokal (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handful of comments in favor of merging the article, which I think is reason enough to keep the AfD live for at least a little longer. I'd say maybe give it another 16-24 hours and see where things stand. If the consensus does not change by then, I think we can close this AfD as "keep" without much dissension. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. It covers the exact same content as the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

On second thought, striking my previous comment. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but try to avoid redundancies between this article and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—For the same reason that Iraqi invasion of Kuwait isn't a redirect to Gulf War. We need separate articles for specific military engagements (invasions, massacres, battles, etc) that occur during the course of a war because they allow us to describe that particular sequence of events in greater detail without inundating the conflict's main article with extraneous text. If we consolidated everything into a single article, it would be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The swift operation conducted by Hamas forces resulted in a significant impact, despite its brevity. led to 2023 Israel–Hamas war --Nehaoua (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The keep argument doesn't address the issue over sourcing and if you have sources we can revisit this but otherwise the policy argument is that this isn't sourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carrer de Pau Claris, Barcelona[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing to show why this street is notable. I don't speak the local languages but I'm not seeing anything much on ca.wiki which would help show notability here. JMWt (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain. JMWt (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic street. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't think of any reasons why a 1.2km long street in the historic centre of an historic major city wouldn't be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wait, so every street of over 1km long in every city in the world is notable? Where's the policy to that effect? JMWt (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment streets in pre-20th century developments of major (compact) cities are generally covered by sources adressing them. I've just cited a very brief one (because it is a very old source, and thus freely available, but close to the creation of the street, but there are surely "streets of Barcelona"-like (or "streets of Eixample"-like) works which are more recent and deal with the street in a more extensive fashion).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So WP:TMBS..? JMWt (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for and cited some online sources. You also have Espinàs, Josep Maria (1961). Carrers de Barcelona. Editorial Selecta..--Asqueladd (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that or are you putting words in my mouth? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you mean when you said " I can't think of any reasons why a 1.2km long street in the historic centre of an historic major city wouldn't be notable."?

Which streets over 1km long in which city would not be notable, according to you? JMWt (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I actually say "every street of over 1km long in every city in the world is notable" then? Please reread what I said and try not to make things up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So either a) give reasons why this specific street is notable or b) give reasons why all streets of this kind would be notable. You can't have it both ways. JMWt (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said why above. Major street in the historic centre of a major historic city. Honestly, do we need to repeat everything twice here? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a) not a policy based rationale and b) not usable as almost every city is "historic" and c) a claim that there "must be sources". JMWt (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now United. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mélanie Thomas[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All claimed awards are for the connected group Now United and a majority of those awards don't have their own Wiki articles. Fails WP:MUSICBIO independently. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ivory Coast. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is the first thing Google brings up, then Famous Birthdays, then it's downhill from there. Long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to Now United, the musical group. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now United, because fans are likely to search for her name regardless of whether she qualifies for her own article. I have run across the Now United mob before, as fans have insisted that every single one of the dozens of members should have separate articles for their run-of-the-mill personal biographies. Some of those actually survived because the singer has done things outside of Now United, but Ms. Thomas has not. Until she goes solo and finds her own success, her personal background is non-notable for our purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now United.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle explosion[edit]

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

Much better covered in the main articles linked from this article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Car bombs and kamikazes are not strongly connected. There are Category:Airliner bombings, but those and car bombings are covered in Tactics of terrorism#Vehicle-based attacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Measured quantity[edit]

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

just a definition Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless WP:DICTDEF. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject completely lacks sources, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY also seems to apply here. User:Let'srun 01:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdil Ceylan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. It is possible that it was once notable, but not anymore. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spike and Mike's Festival of Animation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's Lunchbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the "Spike and Mike Festival of Animation" article, seems to be the context in which this is notable [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bin There Dump That[edit]

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

All sources are either own web-site, directly affiliated or direct from the key players in the company with direct quotes in the source. No source that is interdependent of the company and speaks about the company. Appears to be a promo job created immediately auto-confirmed status is attained Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor support system[edit]

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

Hard to find sources other than those based on this article such as http://www.oilfieldwiki.com/wiki/Conductor_support_system Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Mirea[edit]

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

I am not able to locate any coverage with the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Sport Tim and Timisplus but both are just trivial mentions of her. I note the existence of SS Politehnica but it's a primary source and a transfer announcement. Also SPORTBASIC gives us extra reason to rule the source out by saying that Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Nimorinka (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Great Central League with the history preserved until such time as sufficient sourcing exists for a spinout Star Mississippi 21:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Champaign-Urbana Bandits[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSPORT due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Baseball, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what standards the baseball project applies for lower-level minor-league teams, but a search on Newspapers.com turns up a lot of hits from the 1990s that are not available via a Google search. E.g. this (part 1/part 2), this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These sources are all routine reports that do not provide the requisite WP:SIGCOV (I checked newspapers.com during my WP:BEFORE check). Let'srun (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude -- This (part 1/part 2) two-page, multi-column piece is the antithesis of "routine". It may or may not be enough (and may have some indepedence issues), but you lose credibility when you call it a routine report. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to the Great Central League, where all info on this minor league can be contained. Spanneraol (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spanneraol. There is at least one piece of SIGCOV, as noted above, but even that consists almost entirely of quotes from team reps, calling into question its independence. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown College Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, Kansas, and Missouri. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches did not turn up WP:SIGCOV of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Please ping me if SIGCOV is found. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lack of secondary sourcing is present here to meet WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 02:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Collegiate Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, and California. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches did not turn up WP:SIGCOV of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any WP:GNG level coverage for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Neacșu[edit]

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

Similar case to Anamaria Gorea. A database entry rather than an article and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The only source that is more than a trivial mention is FRF but SPORTBASIC states that Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. so an article in FRF does not support a notability claim as it's the governing body for Romanian football. Having translated the article, there isn't that much independent content and, in any case, even if the article were considered good, one article isn't enough for SPORTBASIC or GNG. The only other source that wasn't a database source was Opinia Timisoarei but it's only a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham County Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of independent sources providing coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, and Virginia. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be the oldest amateur baseball league in the U.S. ([18]) and has extensive coverage across its near-century of existence, e.g. [19] [20] [21] [22], etc. - Newspapers.com brings up 217,000 matches for the name of the league and the first several pages of results all look like feature stories on the RCBL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't looked further to see what else may be out there, but none of these sources contain the WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is full-page feature coverage, making your statement of none of these sources contain ... WP:SIGCOV not true at all. Really? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This is a close call, as it appears that most of the newspapers.com results is just trivial and routine game coverage, but the second source from BeanieFan11 (apologies for somehow missing that one) combined with [[23]] shows this one clears the WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 02:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Beannie. Meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Zin Oo[edit]

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

BLP with no valid sources, no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find are Myanmar Digital Newspaper (translated), which mentions him once, and MNL (translated), which mentions him as the winner of an award in the second tier of Myanmar, which isn't pro. In any case, neither of these address Kyaw Zin Oo in sufficient depth to be considered a GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Polantz[edit]

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

Draft already exists at Draft:Katelyn Polantz which is why I am coming here. Draft was declined by User:Umakant Bhalerao initially. My own take is that current sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV, an article in NYTimes about her wedding doesn't seem right for an article that is talking about her as a journalist. Sources do not look WP:INDEPENDENT to me. Needs more citations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is drawn from several staff bios from publications Polantz has been involved with as well as the Politico Q&A and the NYT wedding piece (which I hold is valuable info for the personal life heading, as well as date of birth). The independence of the sources could certainly improve — does anyone have any sources with which Polantz is less personally involved? Thank you for the input 2600:1016:B077:6071:D945:4F5A:2CD3:167A (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of SIGCOV of her as a journalist. A wedding announcement doesn't contribute towards notability. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette article is not independent because it's an interview. Also does not meet NJOURNALIST. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her work and coverage and has been cited in several books and journals –– I feel referencing these could bolster the credibility of the article. Would these fit under the "Reporting" section or warrant their own section? Patrickswain (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Being cited in a book/journal does not establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage of Polantz as a person, not just of her work, to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does being interviewed by your employer count towards notability? [24], [25]. I wouldn't count the wedding article as SIGCOV, it could be used to flesh out an existing article, but can't be used to keep an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is mostly found related to the Mueller Report, I think she was a reporter on that item at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being interviewed by your employer does not establish notability because that interview is definitely not independent. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is an average, mid-career reporter. The main claim to notability in the lede seems to be she was EIC of her school newspaper. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry but this doesn't have enough sources but I can give you the article back in your user space if you want it or it can go up drafts if anyone wants to work on it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ko'asek (Co'wasuck) Traditional Band of the Sovereign Abenaki Nation[edit]

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

The Abenaki nation is obviously notable, but I can't find significant coverage from multiple secondary sources for this particular group, just routine local coverage. Most of the references aren't about this group, but about Abenaki history in New Hampshire and further afield, which could usefully be merged to Abenaki along with a paragraph on this group, but it's not yet notable enough for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Hampshire. Wikishovel (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me improve the article.

Coverage by the states largest media and land acquisition indicate that this tribe has influence in tribal affairs in NH, the only state lacking any tribal recognition. I am rusty with Wikipedia citations format from inactivity. The only copyright issues were of the tribes own site with permission. I think CC 1.0 is the correct classification for the flag, but please let me know if I am wrong. I am seeking more independent articles. Specific missing citations will be added next week. Bottom line- indigenous people have continually had a presence in New Hampshire for millennia but ethnic and cultural genocide has taken its toll. This small group claims and shows actions for a unifying connection role in New Hampshire and appears to add value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksherin (talk • contribs)

Hello, the copyright problem will be fixed by an admin shortly, so don't worry about that, and I'm sure it was just an honest mistake. I make em all day long.

The problem is WP:Notability for this present day group. I did have a dig before nominating this for deletion, and haven't been able to find enough significant coverage in secondary sources, but maybe some will be found. So far the article only shows that indigenous people were there up until the colonial era. Even if we could prove continuity, that on its own might not be sufficient: we need to show how this present day group is notable enough for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this indigenous band is noteworthy for its historic presence, ties to the land, indigenous cultural preservation efforts in New Hampshire, actual land acquisition, intent to build a cultural center and quality genealogical efforts. Abenaki bands in New England are criticized for poor quality evidence for tribal membership and inclusion. See various NPR reports on the subject not cited in this article. Finally New Hampshire offers no tribal recognition, hence this band is not eligible for state recognition.

The flag copyright issue appears resolved.

I acknowledge mis steps in working on this article and am learning.

Various references which appear to offer independent content are added.

These are my preliminary thoughts on why the article should be maintained and not deleted.

In conclusion, Native indigenous people, and descendants in New Hampshire have literally hidden or otherwise been deleted for far too long. User: Ksherin October 07, 2023. 3:59 UTC

@Ksherin:, I asked at your user talk page, and you thanked me but didn't reply: what's your connection with the group? Wikishovel (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((Hello.

You asked about my connection to this article about the Traditional Cowasuck band of the Sovereign Abenaki Nation.

I am trying to help the recognition of indigenous groups in New Hampshire, a state that lacks formal indigenous recognition, after attending a pow wow of the Cowasuck traditional group in June, and I have indigenous roots myself. I have applied for membership in several Abenaki groups including Missisquoi and this one, so I am familliar with some of the processes to a limited extent. I also have begun to study the western Abenaki language with a group in NY state. Ndakkina center. .

I offered to write and help post this piece to Wikipedia as I have some experience with Wikipedia mostly related to history connected to my home town of Uxbridge, Massachusetts. You can see my previous efforts.

I have the email contact info of the chief Paul Bunnell and he gave me permission to post the flag on Wikipedia commons for the article about the Cowasuck traditional band which I am trying to write.

The flag image is from the Koasekabenakination.com website itself. KoasekAbenakiNationFlag.Jpg was then uploaded to Wikipedia commons several days ago by me and then added to the article about the traditional band. Url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%27asek_(Co%27wasuck)_Traditional_Band_of_the_Sovereign_Abenaki_Nation

I emailed Paul Bunnell with the copyright creation request that followed. He has asked me to respond about the flag content which was made in Rhode Island 8 years ago.

The Symbol is the official logo and flag of this group. It keynotes roots in the New Hampshire woodlands, mountains, a canoe and 2 paddles, trees, a bird, fish, corn and the full name Koasek Cowasuck traditional band of the sovereign Abenaki nation. Paul Bunnell sent you info about the designer, the copyright and he did not request this article. It is my own initiative.

If you need more info don’t hesitate to contact me. )). User:Kherin UTC:6:40— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksherin (talk • contribs)

As you have been editing on behalf of the group, both at the article and in the copyright discussion at your talk page, you have a conflict of interest on the subject, regardless of whether or not you're getting paid for it. Please read WP:Conflict of interest to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines about this, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is all I can find [26], [27], simply a record of events they were involved in, nothing for sigcov. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Nghiem[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this article meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Seem WP:TOOSOON at best. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Vietnam. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does seem possibly a case of too early career. Top citations in GS are 41,37,31,21,19[28], and I don't believe it is a particularly low-citation field? No other criteria in WP:PROF are obviously met. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep after looking more carefully at the sources with GTranslate, especially the first source, a long profile from what I think is Tia Sáng magazine. The award, although early career, appears significant at a national level. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: is there any indication that she won the award that she was nominated for? This seems to indicate she didnt win. Usually being nominated for an award does not confer notability. --hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.: I understand these concerns on notability, though would like to present some more contexts for reconsideration. One point on WP:NPROF: point 6 regarding holding an important position in a major research institution. Hoa Nghiem is the vice director of one such institute, though it is hard to determine what institution is major in the country, since there are only a handful of physics research institutions in Vietnam.

That is also the context in which this article is based: there is only a small number of physicists in Vietnam and even fewer woman physicists. It is even more unusual for one such person to hold any major position in a research institution. Look up any Vietnamese physicist residing in Vietnam at the moment and you might realize there are very few independent sources written about them, no matter how prominent in the circle within the country. That is why Hoa Nghiem's achievements and media attention, though seemingly meager compared to the standard Wikipedia biography, are notable, given her background and the academic circle she belongs to. This is why I believe the judgement of notability, given this context, should be of a different standard.

I do agree, though, that this article will be of interest to few readers outside of Vietnam, a relevant consideration given that the article is written in English. I am split as to whether this constitutes the reason why this article should exist. Thidhoang (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult in such cases. The citations might be acceptably high for work not published in English? We don't usually count second-in-command positions, even in very major institutions (though perhaps we should). Perhaps someone more expert in this area could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unusual success including a prized award for a women physicist in Vietman.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: is there any indication that she won the award that she was nominated for? This seems to indicate she didnt win. Usually being nominated for an award does not confer notability. --hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on her citation profile, she does not pass NPROF#1 with an h-index of 7 and there is no indication she actually won the prize that Ipigott mentioned as a reason for their vote. This seems to indicate she didnt win, the three winners were Pham Duc Chinh, Nguyen Le Khanh Hang and Le Trong Lu. Furthermore, I dont think she could be notable under NPROF#6 as per criterion an important position in a major research institution which is not fulfilled here either, the institute she works at hardly classifies as a major institution for international research and her position is vice-director. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOEARLY, she just started her group in 2017 and is likely an assistant professor (or would be in the Western career progression); assistant profs which are only notable for WP under exceptional circumstances. --hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per hroest's analysis. Note that she doesn't have an entry in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, one of the biggest Wikipedias (>1 million articles). That's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nick Smith (milliner)[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page which suggests that the subject is particularly notable in the field. As the hat from May 2022 says, the content reads like an advertisement and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has some businesses and won a minor award. So have lots of people. Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTPROMOTION. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bieber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable relative of notable person: on Wikipedia, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I can find is tabloid gossip about what he might have posted to social media etc, and always in connection with his notable son, with no independent coverage whatsoever. Doesn't pass WP:MMANOT for his MMA career, or WP:NFILMMAKER for his filmmaking. Wikishovel (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Wikishovel (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the level of coverage found [29], does not pass notability for criminals. He apparently dropped his baby and all sorts of other things that don't sound very nice, none of which help prove notability here, other than perhaps getting a brief mention in Justin's article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since the last deletion discussion nine years ago for this subject to fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. --Tserton (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Lethweimaster (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deranged Trump Syndrome[edit]

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

Perhaps this deserves to be speedy deleted as a G10 attack page, but in any case, a neologism raised by someone in an op-ed, and hardly used in that sense since then, doesn't deserve an article, no matter how you feel about the truth or lack of it behind it. Fram (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the references uses the term "Deranged Trump Syndrome" from an op-ed piece written on 12 October 2023, insufficient time to enter common vernacular. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been used since 2018 [30], then recently [31], ~~[32]~~ . Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the Gnews link above, there are good sources in the first few that pop up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your very first link[33] has the exact opposite meaning from the one in the article we are debating, and is instead describing the Trump derangement syndrome. And your third link[34] doesn't even contain the word "deranged" or a variation thereof apparently... Fram (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened with the last link. Ignore it. The first uses a different meaning of the term, which can be included in the article to show, other meanings of the term I suppose. Here are more [35], [36], [37]. Last one from Wall Street Journal is an opinion piece, but proof of usage of the term. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

//All opinion pieces except the last one, which is a letter to the paper (if I see it correctly), and your sources 2 and 5 are the same text (or at the very least from the same writer, I can't completely access the second one). So far, all we have is some opinion pieces using a term, no reliable, independent sources about the term. To introduce slurs against someone as encyclopedic content we need better sources than this. Fram (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - This is a serious violation of WP:BLPPUBLIC. "Deranged Trump Syndrome" presumes he is mentally unbalanced, with no supporting diagnosis or evidence. Unlike Trump derangement syndrome, a pejorative term which refers to a long-time pattern of specific behavior. Deranged Trump Syndrome violates Wikipedia policy, and presents no facts to support the allegation. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not G10 given the SIGCOV, but most of them are either op-eds or routine coverage about Trump derangement syndrome, thus fails GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Accurate or not, calling a former president deranged requires substantially better sources. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a neologism that everyone needs to learn about. Plus, it gained national coverage as it is related to government. Just in fact that this will be popular in next other year. --205.155.225.253 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does not fit the criteria for a speedy keep. Conyo14 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship. Sourcing is insufficient, but history remains should some eventuate for a merger or re-spin. Star Mississippi 18:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasek, Łuków County[edit]

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

Though this is described as a "forest hamlet", a more accurate translation of the term osada leśna would be "forest settlement" (A hamlet - przysiółek - in Polish law is reserved for a cluster of farms, not a single farm). A forest settlement in Polish law need not be inhabited, and can be part of a another settlement. From the satellite photos it can seen that this is just an individual farm, the address of which is in Klimki (the village in which this settlement is located) - there is no evidence of it having ever been anything else.

Three sources are provided in the article:

A link to the TERYT database that merely reports this as a "forest settlement", and provides no further data.
A link to the Polish regulation on place-names, which simply repeats that it is a forest settlement.
A Polish postal directory, which actually includes no entry for Lasek, Gmina Łuków.

Based on the location actually being a single farm, the status the place having not being one that requires the location to be populated, and the postal directory lacking an entry for this location, this fails WP:GEOLAND. Specifically, there is no clear evidence that this is a "legally-recognised populated place". Even if it were a GEOLAND pass, WP:NOPAGE means there would be no need for a page on this topic that cannot possibly ever be expanded into a full article due to lack of sourcing.

Notably, no population is reported for this location in any of the sources either on here or on PL Wiki.

In terms of ATDs, I'm OK with simply redirecting this to Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship, which it is part of and all of its details are identical to, but prefer deletion since we should not be redirecting the names of individual farms. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a single farm. –dlthewave ☎ 00:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- More than one house or farm. There are numbers 34 and 34A, and I'm not sure if number 35 nearby is part of it or has its own place name. Peter James (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But, for the avoidance of doubt, those addresses are all in Klimki, right? Having looked into this in detail, Poland used to maintain forestry offices in woodland areas, many of which were registered in TERYT and in the place-name regulation as “forest settlements”. Some were later sold off and became private houses/farms (see the PL wiki article on forester’s lodges). However, these remain on the register as “forest settlements”. Something similar happened to Polish state farms - some of our articles even have the initials “PGR” (I.e, “State Agrigultural Farm”).
  We’re looking at a status that individual buildings/farms could receive. FOARP (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Individual buildings (or areas occupied by a building, with or without additional land) could probably have the status of UK civil parish or US city (which have boundaries and could exclude a new house built next to that building). A list of populated places would not exclude places with official recognition just because they have only one or two inhabited buildings. A place and a building are not the same - if the building is demolished the place still exists, and if the building is moved to a new location it may cease to be part of the place. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. TL;DR, I think hamlets are likely notable, unless we can prove beyond doubt this was a hut or such that nobody ever lived in. It has a unique name and is recorded in statistical Polish databases. I'd consider a merge target if it was a part of a larger village but I don't see this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - The WP:BURDEN is on the people making the claim that this place is a hamlet to show that it is a hamlet. None of the data in the article says this - it is listed as a "forest settlement". A hamlet would be a przysiółek, and would be a cluster of farms. According to the English-language definition of hamlet also, a hamlet is more than just a single farm. Many forestry offices were added to the register as osada and remained on there after being sold off, and this is likely just another example of this.

Particularly demanding that it be proved beyond doubt that a place isn't something that no source say it is is an inversion of WP:BURDEN - it is for people making the claim that this place is a hamlet to prove it, not the other way round. And even if it were a hamlet, then WP:NOPAGE is clear about what we do with topics for which no actual article can be developed. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the case of interwiki problems (or translation headache), but as I said, pl:osada has the interwiki to hamlet (location). pl:Przysiółek is something else and does not have English interwiki. Frankly, what we know is that this place is classified as an "osada", and trying to use English translations adds a layer of possible confusion on top of it. Maybe we should have a discussion at WT:POLAND on notability of such entities. As you have already seen, even on pl wiki there is no clear consensus (although usually inclusionists win). Although I don't consider myself an inclusionist these days, as I explained here and eleshwere recently, I think a minimum of redirect for such names (searchable terms) is required. I know WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument overall, but those are historical or present names someoen can search for and they should get some kind of result from the encyclopedia - not necessarily a stand-alone article, but something useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Piotrus, you asked to be pinged where there was a viable redirect, here it would be Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship, which the site has an address within. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP How sure are we that the address is in Klimki? @Stok, any thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - At least Google Maps gives the addresses at the site in the article as being in Klimki (e.g., the houses at the location are listed as "Klimki 34A" and "Klimki 35"). FOARP (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship. I tend to prefer to keep minor places at least as redirects where they can be shown to actually exist. But in the absence of sources either in depth or with at least a full range of statistical data (i.e. a separate census listing), it doesn't make sense to maintain a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Omose[edit]

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

Subject is an entrepreneur with a few media coverage which do not clearly establish their notability for an entry into encyclopedia. While several of the sources cited are primary sources the others only gave a passing mention of the subject. See the primary sources: [38][39][40][41][42][43]. This source does not mention the subject at all[44] These sources only gave passing mention to the subject[45][46] This here[47] is interview and does not count for notability. Noneate (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comprehensive analysis of the nominator. Have done before search to determine if there are sources that could improve the notability of the subject but the result returned negative. Almost all sources cited in the article are primary to the subject or their close affiliates. Cray04 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Business Day is the only reliable source there. Sadly, the article is a press release that cannot establish notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Cornfield[edit]

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

Record producer / sound engineer of questionable notability. Could not find SIGCOV about him, though there are mentions of him in various sources. Natg 19 (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Natg 19 (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, this category should also be deleted: Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield. Natg 19 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All mentions in RS are of this person in relation to the musician they've worked with [48]. Nothing that helps establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagles (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon Frey[edit]

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

This article should be redirected to Eagles (band). Per WP:BANDMEMBER, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." Deacon Frey has no such individual notability. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - The sources in the article do not establish stand-alone notability, and everything relevant is already in the article about the band.FOARP (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Song-ho[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and North Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough information here to be worth keeping. Bensci54 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kum-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Han Song-ho[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kairali Ayurvedic Group[edit]

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

Advertisement and notability GregChi (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and India. GregChi (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found through google search. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Pallavaram Corporation[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the notability guideline for geographic features Wikipedia:GEOPURP. It was a proposed City Municipal Corporation, a form of local government for cities in Tamil Nadu, India. Additionally, the information on the proposal is scarcely available, often based on unofficial comments. The proposal was abandoned on 3 November 2021, when the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation was established, annexing Pallavaram and other areas "proposed" for Pallavaram City Municipal Corporation. I do not think it merits a merger with the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation as most of the information about the proposal is unofficial comments. Wiki6995 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
State Government had announced forming three municipal corporations in Chennai Metropolitan Area adjacent to Chennai Corporation Limits. There were progress in Formation of Pallavaram Corporation and later decided to fuse into single corporation under Tambaram City Municipal Corporation. All the sufficient references have been specified while creating and contributing to article. The article itself having the conclusion that the proposal came to end by fusing areas into Tambaram City Municipal Corporation. The article can be retained for reference as it was a past proposal but it can be marked as defunct/dropped in title. DonGamerz1 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 6 October 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!} 03:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunak (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There's no way a disambiguation page for Sunak can be created. There's only one other topic other than the Rishi Sunak page, and that is Sunak, Pasinler. Maybe the hatnote in the Rishi Sunak article can be changed to:

RMXY (talk) 02:58, 29 September 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 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER. Wasn't this deleted once before? CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~answer to self: yes, as a G14. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep per additions. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 06:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two villages in India. One is probably notable (population 3122, with a temple that is mentioned in Rama Lakshamana Temple, Baradia and in an image caption in Hinduism). Peter James (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added two villages, the one in India (https://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/509262-sunak-gujarat.html) and another in Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me that there are enough entries to have a disamb page. JMWt (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the new entries, seems just enough. NotAGenious (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the new additions a valid disambiguation page. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It seems that the only grounds for deleting this article is that the subject supposedly requested it. But there has been no validation that the requester is the subject of this article so that remains in doubt to me, the closer. So, I find myself siding with those arguing that this article should be Kept. If editors believe this article should be protected, please put in a request at WP:RFP. But generally, protection isn't given proactively and it might only be protected once/if vandalism occurs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deen K. Chatterjee[edit]

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, someone claiming to be the subject is claiming that the article was created as the result of blackmail, and is repeatedly blanking the article. As such I am nominating the article for deletion as a courtesy, regardless of the truth of the allegations. To be honest, I am very skeptical of the blackmail claim, as the author of the article is a long-standing user, and none of the content in the article is in any way negative. I have no strong opinion about whether this person passes WP:PROF or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GScholar. Notability more likely to be via WP:NAUTHOR than WP:NPROF. Could reasonably be construed as a relatively unknown figure for the purpose of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but I am not a fan of the supposed subject's strongarm approach. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets wp:NAUTHOR. I don’t see any reason to delete the page. There is no evidence it is being used to blackmail the subject. Thriley (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a similarly named page deleted as WP:G7 13 years ago [49]. Perhaps that one was used for extortion and the subject is now skeptical? —siro χ o 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the deleted content of the original Deen Chatterjee article, there is nothing there that is objectionable either or that could serve as extortion material. It was tagged for speedy deletion (non-notable) and then the page creator blanked it. ... discospinster _talk 20:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing seems solid, personal requests aside, I think the individual here is a notable scholar, deserving of a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps the subject (presumably User:Deenchat) has received an email from someone saying they will change the article in the future unless they pay. I suggest increasing page protection to extended confirmed protection for now for this reason.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems very weird ("This page was created for financial extortion"); nothing in the current or deleted article seems to be objectionable. Agree with A. B. that protection might be warranted. The subject seems notable as an author. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Others have suggested they've threatened to add defamatory content in the future. There are also documents examples where scammers have threatened to delete article or have them deleted if the subject doesn't pay up. Note that the subject receiving a threat of whatever, doesn't mean it was created for the purpose, even if the person who contacted them said this. It's well accepted that plenty of scammers will find existing articles created by others in good faith and sprout nonsense to try and get a subject to pay. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the subject’s request and the policy discussion above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has anyone verified that the deletion request originates with the subject of the article? (For example, is this an attempt by scammers to hold the page for ransom?) Notability per WP:NAUTHOR looks likely, although it looks like it might be the kind of marginal case where we should honor a genuine deletion request from the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am incredibly sceptical of someone who flings wild accusations of extortion against an established user because they want to memory-hole an article that does not suit their PR purposes. The sourcing seems good, the subject likely meets ~~WP:NACADEMIC~~ WP:NAUTHOR (which would mean deleting the article would be pointless, as someone else could just create the article with the same sources while still adhering to WP:BLP), and (should this article be deleted) someone is going to want to watch the title to make sure it doesn't get turned into a PR page for Chatterjee. As to whether or not there is any sort of blackmail going on, ECP should fix that (semi is too low a bar here) and allow the article to still be edited; if they're that persistent about a payday someone sitting on the page to watch it may be needed until then.
All around, this seems like a case of one or more people having no idea how Wikipedia works and assuming either that we'll buy spurious claims of an established editor creating a page to extort the subject, or that material to further an extortion scheme doesn't get summarily reverted on discovery for whatever reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: I think we should be very careful about flinging accusations against subjects, when we as editors should know a lot better. As I said above, it's well established that extortion over articles can and does happen, way too often. Note as I said above, this doesn't mean the creator of the article was involved. In fact it's very common that blackmailers just find articles on subjects with low notability, especially new articles and then make up bullshit. (Not what happened here but it also happens a lot with articles at AFD.) While it's unfortunate that the subject took the blackmailer at their word, as you yourself have said we cannot expect subjects to know how Wikipedia operates and for that matter we cannot expect them to know how Wikipedia scams operate, so we should not fault them when they unfortunately make such mistakes and instead just help to inform them. Also I don't think the subject is wrong to be concerned. Anyone experienced with BLP knows that way too many BLP violations last way too long in articles. The vast majority of these by far are not added by scammers, but we should have sympathy for subjects who do recognise what a disaster articles often are for subjects sometimes fairly but way to often not fairly. (Note that this doesn't mean we should delete articles on notable subjects where BLPREQDEL doesn't apply, but it does mean we should have sympathy for subjects concerns rather than pretending we're some perfect place which never defames and harms living persons with our articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- probably a Keep based on either Author or PROF guidelines (books and book reviews, not GScholar citations are what make a philosophy prof notable) but given the request, I strongly suggest putting the extended confirmed protection on the article as a precaution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
Comment, leaning delete. I'm not sure whether the book list on the page passes WP:AUTHOR, but the page seems to me to fail WP:PROF, by a fairly wide margin. The faculty positions (fellow, affiliate faculty) are fairly junior-level. Unless the page passes Author or GNG, there may be insufficient notability to keep, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that this article was actually created for extortion purposes doesn't pass the sniff test. It's much more plausible that a scammer came along and lied about creating it, maybe throwing in a threat to put nasty things in it if the subject didn't pay up. Searching on JSTOR finds enough book reviews that, if they were solo-author works, we'd have an unremarkable pass of WP:NAUTHOR. However, they are edited or co-edited collections, which we generally (and I think with good reason) count as lesser contributions when it comes to evaluating notability. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors. I'm skeptical of the unverified subject's request to delete as this could be part of the scam and it doesn't seem like there is inappropriate content in the article. But, of course, consensus here rules.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IKON Awards[edit]

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

There is no evidence of any serious RS SIGCOV for this commercially motivated and entirely self-serving award, presented by 'SAUTIplus Media Hub' in Uganda. This and the 2nd iKON Awards are not backed by any reputable academy of film or other body and are all too easily abused to create 'notability' for figures where none otherwise would exist. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources with significant coverage exist, for example:

So Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Monitor is probably your best source, the first two are a list of winners, and a bunch of photos. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Noting the line "The 1st Ikon Awards ceremony, presented by the Sauti Plus Hub", it's a glorified 'employees of the year' ceremony but televised because it's very likely that any non-Sauti Plus nominees are not going to win an award in favor of things on Sauti Plus. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's refs are inadequate. For example, this website purports to be a news organisation but has no staff pages or editorial policies. This has 4 sentences excluding quotes and then a simple award listing, so fails SIGCOV in my opinion. Then compare this piece's line The iKon – Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognizes and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika. to the website's home page: The iKon - Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognises and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika. These are basically exactly the same, and are not even paraphrased at all.

For the 1st ref above, iKon Awards, a prestigious event put together by SAUTIplus Media Hub, will recognise and reward exceptional individuals and organisations who embody creativity, innovation, and enterprise in their work in the Ugandan Film and Television industry is especially similar with the website's own description, which states The iKon Awards will reward and recognise exceptional individuals and organisations that carry the spirit of creativity, innovation and enterprise in the Film and Television society in 32 categories., and is not even paraphrased. Also compare these two quotes ...a 'Kibo', a respected ornament in Ugandan culture. With the sun at its centre, the accolade symbolises the harvest of an outstanding level of greatness (from the award page) and The award plaque takes the form of a locally crafted basket called a “Kibo,” a highly respected ornament in Ugandan culture. With the sun at its center, the accolade symbolises the harvest of greatness, and serves as a fitting reward for the iKon Award winners. (from ref 1), which are similar excepting extremely minor paraphrasing. And the website does not even attribute these descriptions. Excluding these parts, the rest is IMO not SIGCOV. The 2nd ref has very short independent parts and is otherwise just a listing of award winners, and IMO fails SIGCOV. This ref I found lists the award winners, e.g., this, with only three sentences of independent analysis (i.e., excluding simply posting the list of who won which award). This just leaves the 3rd ref above, which IMO is insufficient for GNG. My WP:BEFORE search did not find more refs meeting GNG. So delete. VickKiang (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unusually compelling vote! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor quoted above (number 3) has more than 20 paragraphs on the Awards, it's independent, reliable and significant and the users above agree on that. The page has an article of The Kampala Sun that seems significant. MBU has various other articles on the awards, including this one. There is also this [50] in New Vision. There are other existing sources (https://www.pulse.ug/entertainment/movies/ikon-awards-rolled-out-for-second-edition/sle4l9t ; https://thetowerpost.com/2023/03/28/ikon-awards-m-net-triumphs-with-sanyu-and-prestige/ for example). Many, if not most of, Ugandan media covered it one way or another. This seems clearly notable and I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Monitor source and the last few above (Tower Post and Pulse), seem to be just enough to keep it. Barely, but they at least have more than a few lines with a bunch of photos. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources are all non-significant, trivial/routine coverage of an event. Doesn't make it notable. The Monitor source article's play-by-play of who won what isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there are enough references for inclusion, such as: https://www.galaxyfm.co.ug/2021/03/29/reach-a-hand-uganda-launches-the-prestigious-ikon-awards-initiative/, https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/entertainment/new-initiative-to-support-film-industry-gener-NV_135522, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2791129646/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/1, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2795048231/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/4, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, still divided by those who believe SIGCOV exists and those who don't.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Indefensible that these two sources meet SIGCOV

[51]
[52]

Especially the NewVision article which is has significant independent content. I'd add this one, which isn't in the article, not a particularly substantive article but appears to be independent evidence of general notability:

Who won what at the iKon Awards 2023? (Full List Of Winners) [53]

It may be this relatively new award program proves to be an empty industry love-fest without lasting impact, in which case the article could be worth revisiting at some point. But especially considering issues of under-representation on Wikipedia I think it should get the nudge over the edge. Oblivy (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my concern for the MDU ref (the last one you linked to) is mainly reliability more so than indepedence. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your perspective. I'm not thinking that's sigcov but rather general common sense evidence of notability. Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stuart Price. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Faces[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability requirements. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Blake or Stuart Price, who are well-sourced. For this partnership I can't find anything beyond Discogs and Myspace, already cited. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redirect targets have been proposed, and it isn't clear which one is best...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets suggested. And I think you meant Adam Blake (musician) as Adam Blake is a disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need a decision about what article this one should be Redirected to. It shouldn't be a matter of a closer flipping a coin and I don't think a No consensus closure is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

propose redirecting to Stuart Price, as it covers more of the subject and is well sourced altogether. NotAGenious (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prime7. Article can't be Merged to Prime Television which is a Redirect to Prime7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PTV (TV station)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. I only have added 3 references to the article, so far, with most of the references from the Prime7 article, and the article was unreferenced for the longest time, except for the HAAT, which I converted into a note today. I hope someone finally expands the article with additional information on the station's history. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf, can you please find additional references for PTV Mildura, and leave your opinion on this article deletion discussion, whatever you choose, keep, redirect or delete. I know there was a reference on 1 July 1997 (the station's launch day) by the local Sunraysia Daily newspaper in the city about Prime Television (PTV)'s launch in the city, but I can't find it online, except in a TelevisionAU article. Can you please find the original reference? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 00:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:TechGeek105, I'm not sure why you nominated this article for a deletion discussion when it sounds like you are seeking sources for it and don't want it deleted. If that's the case, you shouldn't have brought it to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, sorry for the late reply, I'm mostly no longer active on Wikipedia, hence the ((Retired)) tag on my user page, but the reason why I nominated this article and other articles for AFD and PROD, is because they fail the notability guidelines (WP:GNG), and I failed to find more than 3 references for PTV Mildura. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused about why I'm being pinged about this; I never contributed to this article and though I do contribute occasionally to AU television articles, it's mostly for maintenance edits. Nate • (chatter) 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime7 which does cover this topic. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like a second opinion on the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prime Television: Doesn't have sufficient references for a standalone. Salvage useable and verifiable content to Prime Television considering there is already some overlap. ––– GMH Melbourne 11:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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