< October 25	October 28 >

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prakriya Green Wisdom School[edit]

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

No sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Created by a single edit editor. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2008-05 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment- I Found This: [1] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's some mentions in news sources (regarding how reliable said sources are, I'm not quite certain) but there's really no WP:SIGCOV about any encyclopedic content. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. This source from above [1] fails WP:IS (eg: "We found eight acres of land, with Eucalyptus plantations on it, close to a small lake (which did have water in it then). After clearing the eucalyptus, the first thing we did was to plant over 108 species of trees.", the extensive use of "we" in the source shows this is in an WP:IS.) None of the sources in the article or BEFORE showed WP:IS WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret H. Sedenquist[edit]

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

I found this article because the owner of Imbrifex Books apparently paid at least one editor to create and edit a slew of promotional articles. It turns out there have been socks involved (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlesSquid) and one of the suspected socks created this article. Margaret H. Sedenquist is the mother of the Imbrifex Books publisher and I'm sure she was an amazing person but the article as it stands is referenced by an obituary likely authored by the family and some references that aren't really references.

a Los Angeles Times article that merely mentions her name[2]
a Pasadena Star-News article that also only mentions her in passing and has a quote from her[3]
another Pasadena Star-News article about local events that carries four paragraphs about the local Women's Civic League giving Sedenquist a Woman of the Year award but only two of those four paragraphs are devoted to Sedenquist.[4]

It look like there is only one reference where she is sole subject of the article[5] but it is a local business paper announcing her talk at the local Rotary Club and she is being interviewed. I think that makes it fail WP:INDY as a source.

She appears to have been very active locally and probably a nice person but I don't think it meets WP:BIO right now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable individual. Some of the sources cited appear reliable and also found this one[6] which is not yet cited in the article. AllNotAll (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. I thought this would be an easy keep, but I didn't find anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Obit, looks like the below source from AfD is sourced from this obit.	1. "Margaret H. Sedenquist 1927 - 2021". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
mentioned in sentence near end of article.	2. ^ Drake, Sylvie (February 21, 1986). "Pasadena Playhouse Reopens In April With 'Arms And The Man'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 20, 2023. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Mention with quote, fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Williams, Janette (August 11, 2011). "Five Acres children's home leader Bob Ketch to retire after 34 years at the helm". Pasadena Star-News. Archived from the original on August 19, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Promo for an event they were speaking at, fails WP:IS	Pasadena California, Hotels,CA Real Estate,Restaurants,City Guide... - Pasadena.com". www.pasadenanow.com. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019.
Promo for an event they were participating in, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "Patt Diroll: Honoring those who help the community". Pasadena Star-News. May 15, 2011. Archived from the original on May 18, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	6. ^ "Margaret H. Sedenquist Scholarship".
	from AfD
Reprint of what appears to be an OBIT in a press release, all the normal problems with an OBIT	https://chu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-chu-recognizes-2021-congressional-women-year-hometown-hero-edition

See the nom's comments for what their BEFORE found, mine found nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV. Ping me if WP:IS sources are found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, it really seemed like this would be a Keep, but it needs WP:IS sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. Hopkins[edit]

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

Imbrifex Books paid an editor to create and edit a slew of promotional articles. One of which was already deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Reed) This article has the same issues. It exists to promote an Imbrifex Books author and subtly makes it look like it meets WP:AUTHOR with a slew of references. The problem is the bulk of the references are articles written by Hopkins himself and not about Hopkins. The only references that appear to be about Hopkins are two articles about Nevada Press Association honors he received. I don't think those two are enough for WP:AUTHOR. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he won an award, I do not think it is major enough to establish notability. Most of the references that are from reliable sources are the subjects own articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:55, 30 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!} 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garsha Rezaei[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Cannot locate anything significant in a WP:BEFORE search and the references on the page are basically directory listings for his songs. CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to move this back to draft space, since Maryahamdon unwisely moved this into main space, but hey, this is also a way to handle it. Note: an article on this person was created before, by User:Wmozart1, a blocked sock; I looked at the deleted edits and they're different enough from this one. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the same initially but seeing that it was already declined at AfC prior to the move, thought it best to let it be decided at AfD. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost none of the sources are deemed reliable, and no significant coverage can be found in them, per WP:GNG. Fails WP:SINGER as well. -- Arian (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Kush[edit]

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

Notability MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Keep. There are three highly or moderately highly cited papers in GS with a relatively slow drop off (360,214,121,94,78) and GS is estimating an h-index of 21; I don't know where that falls for this field. His CV [7] is listing (co-)edited books Technology implementation and teacher education: Reflective models (Information Science Publishing; 2010) and Intelligence Quotient: testing, Role of genetics and the environment and social outcomes (Nova Science Publishers; 2013), the latter as sole editor, although we have tended to undervalue editor contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 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!} 18:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help things if the nominator offered a fuller deletion rationale that demonstrated they had done a BEFORE rather than simply typing one word that doesn't distinguish what specific problems exist with this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 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, Daniel (talk) 23:54, 27 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 List of A Certain Magical Index characters#Kuroko Shirai. There does not appear to be any explicit objection to a redirect, and unanimous consensus that the page not be retained as a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroko Shirai[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG as written. I was only able to find a few articles, mainly this list article, and a few others which say she was added to an updated version of Dengeki Bunko Fighting Climax. I'm sorta on the fence about this, so I'm bringing it to AfD for some additional eyes. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_A_Certain_Magical_Index_characters - there's nothing here beyond what's there, and there's not enough substance to support a separate page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Delete: Fails GNG with no significant coverage. As an aside the other characters linked in the info box (Toma Kamijo) and (Mikoto Misaka) should probably be put up for AFD as well. Their articles read like WP:PROMO WP:FANCRUFT to me with minimal sourcing and what is there is trivial or routine coverage you can expect from just about any fictional character from a popular media.Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Memorable side character for fans, arguably - but not encyclopedic material, not as it is written, nothing in my BEFORE. There is half a paragraph of academic analysis/plot summary here. I also found "A Certain Scientific Railgun: 10 Things You Never Knew About Kuroko Shirai" listicle on CBR, but that's low quality source. I a afraid that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found WP:BEFORE. A redirect is fine for WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to List of A Certain Magical Index characters per WP:TNT and thats before we consider the notability issue. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lost in the process; manually relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:22, 27 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. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School[edit]

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

Conducted WP:BEFORE search and the only significant coverage of this school appears to be from The Day, a local newspaper. There's no evidence that the previous Nathan Hale Grammar School and Elementary School, which may or may not be notable on their own, have any link to the Magnet School other than a shared name. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Connecticut. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Have found quite a few sources and done a complete rewrite using only referenced information. There are no longer any sources from The Day, and no mention of any of the previous schools. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulGamerBoy360. I do not believe that the sources you've cited establish notability. Please see the below source review:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NCES			Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
SchoolDigger		? Appears to just pull from federal data, but ownership and standards of site are unclear	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
Niche		Allows schools to claim their page, contains user-generated reviews	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
DonorsChoose	Fundraising website	?	Three sentence description about the school	✘ No
Public School Review	? Appears independent, but their about page has an email for becoming a "partner"	? Appears to just pull from federal data, but ownership and standards of site are unclear	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
newlondon.org	?	?	? Link is broken	? Unknown
US News & World Report	Per WP:RSPS	Per WP:RSPS	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
ElementarySchools.org		Pulls federal data and appears to be relied upon by known RSes	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
GreatSchools.org	Independent non-profit organization	Has standards for ratings	Only provides factual, statistical information and numerical ratings	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Voorts 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree With Your Analysis, this is what I have Come up With:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NCES	Government Site	Government Site	Database	✘ No
School Digger		~ Sources listed on this source are reliable, this source itself is questionable.		✘ No
Niche	~ The Academics Section is Independent	Acedemics From Official Data Sources		~ Partial
Doners Choose	Fundraising Site	Information is from The NCES		✘ No
Public Schools Reviews	? Has a FAQ about how to become a partner & gives a link to contact them about becoming one(unsure what "partner" means in this context).	"Since 2003, Public School Review has been providing rigorous data analysis of USA public schools. By regularly analyzing and updating numerous public data sets from federal and state education agencies"	Many Facts Listed, as well as multiple graphs.	? Unknown
School Website			?	✘ No
USN			Multiple Paragraphs and Graphs	✔ Yes
ElemantarySchools.org		info from NCES	Multiple Paragraphs & Graphs	✔ Yes
GreatSchools			Multipe Graphs & Information from Databases, as well as a Few Paraghraphs	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think the crux of our disagreement regarding the four sources that you've identified as qualifying for GNG is that I do not think graphs, statistical information, and paragraphs summarizing that information sums up to "significant" coverage; I view that as more akin to a database with a brief summary of what's contained in the data. As an aside, I think the "independence" of those sources is arguable since they largely include the same statistical information from the same source (i.e., the federal government). If an article were written on the New London School District, I think this could all be merged into that. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RE Public Schools Reviews, on this page, #3 on the FAQ is "How can we partner with your site?" and provides contact information to do so. It's not clear to me what "partner" means, which is why I marked the independence as questionable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changes the independence of "Public schools reviews to Unknown" - thanks for leading me to that FAQ, but i still stand by the other part of my analysis. I will try to find more info. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found 2 new Sources:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Lyman Allan Art Museum			✘ No
Connecticut Education Association	Independent of the School itself.	~ Full Paragraphs(about teacher)	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the Connecticut Education Association article, then I don't think it's significant coverage of the school, but rather of the teacher who won the award. The remaining sources currently cited in the article also don't contribute to SIGCOV (e.g., the Seussical article) because they're merely reporting on routine events. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are quite a few articles about the school in The New London Day That I can't access due to a paywall, if any editors have acces to The Day It would be helpfull for an analysis on those. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is no inherent notability. This must pass WP:NCORP which requires in-depth coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing here satisfies that requirement when using WP:SIRS to assess the references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Agree with Voorts source assessment. Their are only 3 sources above that Keeps claim for WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, and those three (as noted) as database style records with basic stats, which fails WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. User:Let'srun 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Vargas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in July 2022, and no evolution in subject's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG with no significant, in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Vargas is a former professional footballer who got many caps with professional clubs, and now is managing a professional club, if that is not notable, then I don’t know what the concept of notability means anymore. I’ll include more references hoping it could be enough to keep the article alive.

Merlyn26 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merlyn26: Please provide GNG-passing references here so we can better evaluate the keep arguments. Remember that notability isn't based on WP:NFOOTY anymore. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just playing the game doesn’t qualify you for an article. Not notable and I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage means no article, regardless of whether he was a professional Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to TechShop#Maker Nexus. Daniel (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maker Nexus[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. Most of the citations are not independent of the subject. Others (like the journal article) are mere mentions. The Palo Alto Daily Post is LOCAL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect I created the article. It has become obvious to me that this topic does not meet the requirement for a separate article. Comfr (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Subject fails WP:NCORP and there are a lot of WP:PEACOCK terms in it and some of it reads like an advertisement. Searches reveal no sources that are reliable or independent from the subject. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 22:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Struck delete option, draftify will give the creator time to improve it and remake when ready Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I made a mistake when I created this article. My search for sources turned up many, many results, and I incorrectly assumed that some of them would be good. I should have known better. Comfr (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing will make the subject notable. I have spent several days searching in vain for reliable independent sources, and I don't expect that such sources will appear any time soon. The subject is one of several alternatives to the failed TechShop, and it is already mentioned in the TechShop article. Noisebridge is the only alternative with it own article, because it came into existence long before TechShop failed. I would have changed the article back to a redirect, but I could not because other editors had contributed to the article. See the talk page.Comfr (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I discussed press coverage with the management of Maker Nexus. I learned that the production of medical supplies to contain covid was the only time the the press showed any interest in Maker Nexus. Maker Nexus day-to-day operations are not notable. Comfr (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After almost a week, we seem to have a consensus that the subject is not notable and should not have a wikipedia article. Because I created almost all of the content for this page, and because no one has objected, I removed the content, and reverted to the redirect. I do not have any strong opinions about what happens to this page, and I will accept decisions of others. Comfr (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TechShop#Maker Nexus as Comfr recently did in good faith. I've undone that redirect since this discussion is still ongoing. —siro χ o 05:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial[edit]

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

Routine coverage of a large company used to source the article, no sourcing outside of routine business dealings found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:REFBOMB of corporate spam, no sign it passes WP:NCORP. Anyone thinking to keep it, please name the three most convincing references - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. References are passing mentions or routine announcements and not anything that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not passed by WP:NCORP at all. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tapps Games[edit]

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

Reviewed under NPP. Previously deleted. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the references, all are miles from GNG type except the closest which is a medium length interview of the founder. Of the others, 1 just supports 1 factoid, two are about individual products of theirs and one is a facebook page. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Metacritic is the only green source per sourcebot, but it's a game review, not about the game company. All I can find is this [8] but it's in Brazilian Portuguese, so unsure if it's a RS. Regardless, once source doesn't make this notable (and it very likely isn't a RS anyway). Rest is venture capital reporting (about how they raised money). Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed not a very good source. Skyshifter ^talk 03:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil mentioned. Unfortunately it's a Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage sources about the company. Skyshifter ^talk 03:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desarrollos Industriales Casanave SC-2005[edit]

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

Unnotable proposed variant of the FN FAL, does not seem to have materialised, no external sources found, not worthy of separate article. Elshad (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if a citation is added then merge into FN FAL. Flurrious (talk) 15:59, 29 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!} 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joulepoint[edit]

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

Press releases do not make a notable article. Sohom (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Sohom (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self, Hyderabad is not in Andhra Pradesh anymore you dummy Sohom (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the article not meet the General Notability Guideline? It is a burgeoning EV development company in India. The company partners with the central government there as well as the railways (also managed by the central government), it provides the same function as Chargepoint, but in India Thistheyear2023 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, we don't care about anything other than if the company has reliable, in-depth, third party sources covering it, in this case, almost every source you have added is a press release and I could not find anything else of note while looking for additional sourcing, thus my statement at the start pointing out that the article is potentially non-notable Sohom (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing significant coverage even after a Google search. Does not meet WP:GNG.Fbiagent010 (talk) 07:11, 30 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!} 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pezhman Noor[edit]

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

Non-notable. Some sources contain brief trivial mentions and some are paid articles/reportages (like Jamejamonline and Isna). Possible paid editing (per article creator's other articles) Arian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Arian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as no reliable sources appear to cover the subject at all. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found for sourcing we can use. Sourcebot only "hits" on the second citation, with a yellow, so iffy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 27 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 This has been going on at Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena since August 2022 and here since 2015, when it was create-protected before. There is a procession of quite obvious block-evading multiple accounts in the edit history there and at Project:Madhab Chandra Jena (sic!). It was obvious even before I got to the SPI case page. I'm deleting this on sight, revoking the account's privileges, and create protecting both this and ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା (AfD discussion) where this turned up in a language other than English. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Madhab Chandra Jena[edit]

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

Could find zero reliable in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, the same conclusion has been raised repeatedly at Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena since January. There's also a pending SPI against the creator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd speedy this as a stub. I have no sourcing in the article either... Gsearch brings up nothing, other than a hit on the name for a person on parol from prison. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is also another version of this article created by the author AfD' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, could have been moved to draft under WP:DRAFTIFY, little point though since it will not pass BIO anyway 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the facts before deletion.As per policy of Wikipedia the scholar criteria, books criteria and other criteria should be checked.It pains when somebody puts the allegation of undisclosed payments without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is no any hidden fact, peacock terms, it's written neutral point of view, if anything is there like this editors are free to remove that portion very quickly.Nothing can be perfect in very first attempt,there is always a scope for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the websites in Google,books written,scholar,wp ref,wikimedia and other images etc. part then take decisions for deletion.deletion should not be done as a doubt on somebody it should be done as per the Wikipedia criteria and policy.when I checked all the references as as sited above I feel it should not be deleted rather it should be improved by the editors like us— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to improve the structure of the article.Kindly help for improving the article further or suggest for further improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir I have added the Wikipedia references, trying to improve the article,Kindly help with your valuable kind suggestions to improve the article further Banambar (talk) 14:34, 28 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!} 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Richard James Hayler[edit]

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

nominated the article for deletion as the sources used (mostly Ancestry.com ) are unreliable and are not suitable to establish notability. Did check to find coverage about the subject of the article and found nothing that meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all cites in the article are from genealogy websites like Ancestry which are unreliable. No coverage beyond that. -estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance. Kazamzam (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing in Gnews, newspapers or books. Working on the Royal Yacht could perhaps be notable (and that's a big if), with no sourcing in RS and none found, this one's a bust. Delete for lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's something else peculiar here: note the references to Queen Victoria. She died in 1901, but the events are claimed to have happened in 1907. Using my British Newspaper Archive subscription I can confirm that the story from the Sussex Agricultural Express exists and has been quoted correctly, but the quote in the article is the entirety of the story rather than just an excerpt. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; no reliable sources found. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a member of the crew of a Royal Yacht doesn't ensure notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability. But you have to love someone in 1907 being described as a "marine engineering technician"! No, he was a stoker. The Queen is question was presumably Queen Alexandra, not Queen Victoria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 31 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) 17:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This mass shooting has had little enduring impact. User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maine. User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has only been a few months. There is plenty of coverage of the initial event, and more is certain to come from the investigation and prosecution. - SimonP (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a news story with no lasting WP:EFFECT. All sources are breaking news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, I've updated the article. Notability determinations depend on sources that exist in the real world, not just the sources already cited in the article. There were multiple articles from the Associated Press (indicating that this was national news) and other publications that aren't breaking news. I wonder if you'd like to check again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. Calienteramen (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per everyone else, though this article could use some more expansion. Corgi Stays (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SimonP. TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trial to come, so not dormant yet. WWGB (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enough coverage of the event. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, no one has explained how this article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events). There is no depth or duration of coverage, no lasting impact or widespread geographic impact. It is barely even discussed in local media at this point.--User:Namiba 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, I was adding more sources while you were typing this. One of them is several thousand words long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many Wikipedia articles have not much impact, so does that mean we need to delete most Wikipedia articles? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:57, 31 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 List of Croatia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Domazet[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Croatia women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least ten caps for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Croatia. JTtheOG (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:08, 28 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First American Scientific Corp.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine filings and press releases; nothing else found that was independent of the company itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citations are SEC filing and financial info. Nothing can be found in a google search.Fbiagent010 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see is WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing that would pass WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KDS Micronex[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Blatant brochure advertising article. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Most references are passing mentions and article is clearly self-serving. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:38, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Prakash Upadhyaya[edit]

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

Being an Indian Administrative Service officer is just a government job and doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:SNG. Also, the individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Charlie (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would imagine the more significant role would be his position as member of his nation’s cabinet rather than merely an IAS officer. I know US cabinet members pass WP:NPOL, and I can’t see a reason why cabinet members from other nations shouldn’t either.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not sure this meets the letter of NPOL: this individual is a bureaucrat, not a politician in the conventional sense of a holder of elected office. However, his position appears to be that of the highest-ranking bureaucrat in a state government, if I understand the minutiae correctly, and as such he is holding a statewide office: so I think he meets the spirit of NPOL. The coverage is very sparse, so this is a "weak" keep only. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:NPOL ,Indian Administrative Service officer is just a job not a notablity criteria Worldiswide (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of available reference material may be more helpful than a debate over the specifics of the job.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 20 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, Daniel (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing used is simply confirmation of the appointment to the job. Nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Yankees rivalry[edit]

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

There's very little coverage to support an entire article dedicated to a rivalry between these two teams. Their matchups in the postseason are already adequately covered elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frequent playoff matches can always create a rivalry, but you still need reliable sources to prove it, not just WP:FANCRUFT. At the present time both the Yankees and Astros have not met consistently enough to warrant their own article, and subsequently, pass GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of Astros-Yankees matchups. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories, but it would be FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG, including from CBS Sports [[9]] and the NY Post [[10]]User:Let'srun 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - New York Post is redlisted as generally unreliable at WP:RS/PS / WP:NYPOST. Some editors have supported making an exception for sports coverage, but that has not achieved consensus.
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I clicked on this expecting to vote "delete". As someone who was raised on MLB in the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of a Yankees-Astros rivalry struck me as absurd. Having clicked on the sources cited by User:Let'srun, I'm not so sure -- those are two major media outlets clearly defining it as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post is only considered semi-reliable. CBS Sports is a good source for this, but otherwise, it still does not pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sports journalism has a promotional aspect to it, and thus uses the term "rivalry" to cover a broad set of cases, as any two teams that compete against each other can be said to have a rivalry. As there's no official definition, it falls to editorial judgement to decide on what version of the concept is best suited to be described in a stand-alone article. Personally, I feel the concept that meets English Wikipedia's standard of having an article is a sustained competition over years to be recognized for superiority, encompassing fans, players, organizations, and to some degree, the broader citizenry of the associated geographical areas. For better or worse, though, there isn't a simple test to determine this. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's called WP:GNG, with the mentions of "rivalry" or synonyms therein. We don't have WP:NSPORTSRIVALRY though it would be a neat project to do. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional coverage isn't suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met, though, and some sports coverage is promotional: it is explicitly written to ramp up interest in the players, teams, games, competitions, and so forth. This means it will play up conflict, bestow monikers on people and events, and use non-neutral language, for instance. We retain the ability to use editorial judgement to decide what is the best way to cover important events in a team's history, and Wikipedia may not be well-served by having independent rivalry articles for every pair of competing teams. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a rivalry for sure as the teams meet consistently in the playoffs, but this is partially influenced by New York and Yankee fan media being much stronger nationwide about a rivalry than say, Royals-Cardinals, and the rivalry outside of a certain situation involving wastebaskets seems to be the Yankee fans being annoyed about another team being better than them lately...and the Houston/Astro side being more 'just get better then' than anything else, along with the Yankees' futility as of late. Outside NY media beyond the AL playoffs, there's not much to be found about these teams playing. Nate • (chatter) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that Houston based media (in this case, the Houston Chronicle) has also labeled the Yankees as a top rival, so coverage exists in both markets [[11]]. Let'srun (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cbl62, but it is not just the Post and CBS. The Daily News also calls it a rivalry [12]. As does Newsday (in one article a Yankee player calls it "obviously a big rivalry", and both teams' managers call it a big rivalry) [13] [14] [15]. While normally I would be skeptical of a rivalry of short duration like this, the resentment the Yankees (and their fans) still harbor from Houston cheating their way to beat them in the 2017 ALCS makes this more significant than most rivalries of similar duration. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily News is semi-reliable, so we chalk that to a partial. As for the Newsday articles #4 is ROUTINE, #5 Interview of a player, so it's technically not independent, #6 I'd say is quite significant. I might change my !vote as a result. Conyo14 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me for something to be considered a rivalry there needs to be a long historic narrative. A few months ago a similar article was deleted from the same author for the Astros/Braves. Those two teams have a much longer history, but they weren't traditional rivals. The Braves and Dodgers have played a lot against each other the past few years, used to be divisional foes, but it's not a historic rivalry. There needs to be more than a few playoff series to justify an entire article. Nemov (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, including Braves/Astros and even Braves/Dodgers I agree with you. But in spite of those teams being in the same division for a while and in an undivided National League before that, and perhaps some playoff games, there is nothing particularly unusual about their interactions. But Astros/Yankees became unusual with the 2017 cheating scandal and then they continued to have high level playoff interactions since with that as a background. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees so it's covered from multiple angles. The Dodgers lost to the cheating Astros and there's no need for an article either. Nemov (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a full article about the cheating scandal plus reactions. It's moreso the WP:SIGCOV quite a few meetings may have sparked a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cheating scandal itself is covered elsewhere. But it also created an environment that made subsequent Yankees-Astros interactions far more intense than it other would have been, raising them into rivalry territory. As for "The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees," that is hardly a valid deletion rationale. Our notability guidelines are based on the coverage of the subject, with no exception for coverage involving Yankees. The Yankees and Dodgers are somewhat different in this issue because the Yankees and Astros have had more subsequent interactions to generate a rivalry beyond the initial cheating scandal. Rlendog (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. The "rivalry" as it is has only existed for a few years... it needs to extend over decades for it to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What guideline is that, exactly, that a rivalry has to exist over many years? Let'srun (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's included in this article that's not included elsewhere? This brief mention on the New York Yankees article pretty much covers it. Per WP:NOPAGE, there's not a clear explanation for why this article should exist when it only covers stuff mentioned elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Scope of article is centred on a WP:CFORK of Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. WP:NOTEVERYTHING also applies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#ep2. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Giraffe[edit]

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

Not every episode of every TV show is notable. A note in TV Critic alone does not suffice: they write up everything. An internet search shows that there is no other relevant secondary material available. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An WP:Alternative to deletion would be redirecting this to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#Episodes (an WP:Anchor could also be created to link directly to the relevant place in the list). TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#ep2. References are currently too thin to support an article, but episode titles are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Gaskill[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. Basically a CV. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. PepperBeast (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is bordering G11, it can go. Kazamzam (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I came across this in the orphaned articles tag. It doesn't seem like it's near to meeting any notability criteria. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 28 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 14:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child.ua[edit]

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

It is based on primary engaged and non-authoritative sources, releases, announcements; has signs of abuses of WP Promo; a significant part of the statements is not confirmed by the sources at all, there is no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. DreamlarT (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 27 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 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Films India Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Having 4.38 million subscribers on a YouTube channel also fails to establish notability for a company. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 27 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 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Labs[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. A single controversy from an income tax raid does not warrant notability either. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 27 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 Half-Life (series)#Setting. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Half-Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is effectively a list of locations of Half-Life, and it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. No source cited or in my BEFORE covers this topic in a non-game guide form. There is a reception but it is based on passing mention of a location or few in game reviews. Last AfD suggested some merge, and maybe something here can be rescued by merging, but the topic of this article is effectively a lengthy plot summary with a blown up reception section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting and any of the "main article" links present in the current article (ie Black Mesa Research Facility) for any info that isn't WP:GAMECRUFT (it's mostly wikia cruft though.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - the only other individual locale that is probably notable is City 17 while the others either already have articles or aren't notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - The few listed locations that actually are notable, such as Black Mesa Research Facility, already have a separate article, and the rest are just in-universe descriptions of minor locations. The reception section is largely made up of cherry-picked quotes from general reviews of the games, rather than genuine significant coverage on the fictional locations themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suspect most of the details of the individual locations are reflected in the respective game articles (eg I know Aparture's influence and style are mentioned within the Portal articles). Only one that I would think needs to be moved in wholesale is the section on Xen, since that's a well-known part of Half-Life for all the wrong reason. If anything. --Masem (t) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Not every game universe needs its own article, and this sits comfortably in te series page. No prejudice against recreation if there are more sources about the universe itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 31 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 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubikus.HelpUA[edit]

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

It seems like the organization doesn't have enough notability and reliable sources to support its credibility, as well as insufficient media coverage from third-party sources on the given topic. DreamlarT (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 27 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. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Church[edit]

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

No reliable source refs on the page - seem that this guy bowled a few overs a single match for a "first class" non-county (perhaps even a scratch?) team. Does not appear to meet the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A List of D. R. Jardine's XI cricketers needs to be created and him redirected to there. Interestingly, in 5 years time he could become another FC centurion. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like if you wanted it redirected then you first have to create the page - because we can't redirect to a redlink JMWt (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a GNG fail, and the suitable list to redirect to doesn't exist, so delete for now. If list is created in the meantime, then my vote would change to redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 28 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 Cheetah Mehrat. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah caste[edit]

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

I can't find any sources about this - the only things I've found are photos claiming to be of people in this caste, all published by the same person. It's possible that there's sources that talk about it that aren't in English, but since there's no name listed in any other language I can't verify that myself. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear that this information can be verified so seems to me that we need to WP:TNT until someone can rewrite a properly sourced page. I don't see anything, but it could be in a language I don't read. JMWt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination - Elshad (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat - This appears to be the same ethnic group, but Cheetah Mehrat is much more researched. The original Cheetah caste editor WALTHAM2 left Wikipedia in 2017. This current article was created June 11, 2023. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat. It's probably a misnomer to refer to this group as a "caste", but it seems like a reasonable search term for the ethnic group found in Rajasthan. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat - The reasoning by Red-tailed hawk is convincing. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:15, 31 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 FN MAG. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C6A1 FLEX[edit]

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

This is simply a variant of the Canadian (C6) version of the FN MAG, and does not warrant an article of its own for just a single variant (in fact sub-variant!) of the FN MAG. If that were the case we would have at least a dozen articles (for example, the British L7 and subvariants, although extensive, do not have their own article and are covered at the FN MAG article).

Furthermore, it makes no sense to start an article at the C6A1 variant. If an article were warranted for the Canadian version, it would be titled C6 machine gun, and cover all variants.

It makes no sense for this single "FLEX" variant (which is just a brand/marketing name by Colt Canada) to be given its own article.

The content should be merged under the Canadian section of FN MAG. Elshad (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant section of the FN MAG article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 28 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.

List of cities, boroughs and towns in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Further discussion on related pages required. (non-admin closure)‎ Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are two parts to this page. In the first instance, there's the descriptive part, which recounts the administrative history of the former administrative areas of cities, boroughs and towns. This information is separately at Town councils in the Republic of Ireland (which also includes the five municipal boroughs) and City status in Ireland. The second part is the table, which substantially covers information at List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland/2011 census, being the more recent information before the abolition of most of these areas as separate entities. While we should of course ensure that all relevant information (such as the map) is copied and properly attributed, maintaining this separate page doesn't seem useful in the post-2014 world. It would be worth getting Jnestorius's views though as one of the more substantial contributors to this particular page, and to related pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be more inclined to merge Town councils in the Republic of Ireland into List of cities, boroughs and towns in the Republic of Ireland than vice versa; the latter covers 1899–2014, the former only covers 2001–2014 and excludes cities. It's misleading to say the list "substantially covers information at List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland/2011 census" — the latter only has the metropolitan area/pop, not the municipal area/pop or electoral pop. Maybe History of urban government in the Republic of Ireland would be a snappier title. Certainly the 2006 and %change columns can go — personally I don't favour such trivia even for non-obsolete administrative units —; OTOH 1901 area/pop might usefully be added. Councils dissolved before 2001 (Pembroke Township, Dún Laoghaire Borough, Callan, Roscommon, etc) should also be added to the table. The map should distinguish town commissioners from urban districts, and note places which switched class, like Granard (1944) and Galway (1937, 1985). jnestorius^(talk) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts, that could be a good way to organise these. I've been thinking for a while about how best to organise these. The greater the distance from 2014, or from 2002, the more the town councils that existed in that latter period are similarly historic, in the same way as Pembroke Township or Dún Laoghaire. There could be something in listing the first recorded population after their and at the last census before their abolition. For example, I had created a page Urban and rural districts (Ireland), copying material previously on the equivalent Great Britain and Ireland page. There could be something though in your suggestion of a History of urban government in the Republic of Ireland, which would cover all of these, at least in the post-1922 period. There's no pressing urgency about this discussion, so I could bring this to WT:IE to consider the best way of organising pages on the narrative history of sub-county units, and a list of such units. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to withdraw this discussion, to take time to think through a more considered set of proposals at WT:IE on the history of urban government in Ireland, though possibly in a few weeks. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:10, 30 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 List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Roberts (Lancashire cricketer)[edit]

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

Very basic information cannot be verified. I see from the newspaper archives that there are match reports but nothing which fills any gaps here. Unfortunately there just is not enough information to write a page on this person JMWt (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the long established consensus, this seems to be a clear and obvious redirect to List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players. Don Ambrose has some speculation behind CricketArchive's paywall, but basically says "we don't really know who this was, but it could have been this chap, but probably not". This sort of thing can be boldly redirected in future with a note added to the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blue Square Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players Not enough for a GNG pass, but a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 28 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. Given the short period of time this article has been live, willing to restore to draft if anyone so desires - please just ask on my talk page. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Weber[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG and it has also been deleted for lack of importance. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Conservatism, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
was that old deletion about the same person? There are a few with the same/similar names. Juno (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article don't have any significant coverage to be in main space.~ India^cup 09:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Association of Mature American Citizens. Most of the coverage about her is in conjunction with AMAC. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete for lack of sourcing, not even sure a redirect to the association is needed, I don't think being the CEO of it gives any notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Weber participated in the January 6 uprising and wrote about it 3 days later on the AMAC website, insinuating violence was triggered by "Antifa" agents provocateurs. This link is a primary source and does not establish notability. However, there may possibly be news coverage elsewhere of her involvement.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more material/sources. There has been a lot written and she gets interviews with all the R presidential candidates, among others. Juno (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Juno Unfortunately the two articles you added written by John Grimaldi don't count, because Grimaldi himself works for AMAC. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jones (cricketer)[edit]

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

Playing a single first-class game does not give notability per WP:NCRIC which states "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." JMWt (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Wales. JMWt (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hignell has a little on him, but if we can't find anything else then I'd be relaxed about a redirect to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players with a note added summarising the sources and what we know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Be bold and just redirect it, no need to bother with noms. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players Not enough for a GNG pass, but a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 28 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 Iwaidja language. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

𝼛[edit]

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

There are about 150,000 Unicode characters. This one is apparently used in a language spoken by some 200 people, and isn't even mentioned in the article on that language. Sources are all primary (from Unicode). No evidence of any notability. No objection to a redirect to Iwaidja language if people feel it should be mentioned there, but otherwise I see no reason to keep this. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Australia. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iwaidja language; letter isn't notable on its own. ― Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title of this article is just the character - but the character doesn't display on my laptop, and I very much doubt I'm alone. All the article says is that the letter is used in Iwaidja language. I can't see how anyone could reasonably find this article unless they already knew what the character is, and unless they're very lucky, they won't even find out what it looks like. So I'm struggling to see how this article in its current form can be useful to anyone. I'm definitely leaning towards delete but don't consider myself a technical specialist on character sets or languages, so I'm not formulating this as a full !vote. Elemimele (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or merge to Iwaidja language. Unicode databases are not sources that show notability here. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested above. Waggers TALK 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iwaidja language. — The Anome (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Iwaidja language. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iwaidja language Character doesn't even display ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Square (shape). बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Israeli Noar Premier League[edit]

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to suggest that a season of a youth football league is notable. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Israel. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 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 International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This seems to be the preferred Merge target article. But there isn't any prohibition about Merging content to more than one article as long as there is attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War[edit]

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

This list is not obviously notable and does not readily appear to fulfil the most basic tenet of WP:NLIST, i.e.: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here, there is little to no overlap in the sourcing, so little to no evidence that these visits have been widely discussed in sources as a standalone notable group of events. Instead it is more a collection of niche news events. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's ample discussion of the topic of heads of state/government visiting Israel during the war as "solidarity visits", such as [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. In addition, the Wall Street Journal has a tracker for all the foreign leaders who have visited Israel during the war: [21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ is one good example of some aggregation on the subject, but alone insufficient, just as one good source is insufficient for any page. The rest is pretty ropey and trivial news cycle stuff. Yes, the odd visit story mentions a previous visit, but that's not really comprehensively discussing the visits as a group; more joining the dots. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically it meets the notability criteria because there has been a large amount of press chatter about it. Far more than in the ordinary run of things. I can't say I like it, though. Next we will have a list of leaders who have signed a book of condolence, etc. JMWt (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Visits by foreign leaders per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. There may be a handful of articles covering these visits collectively, but it's far too early to say whether they have enduring notability as an independent set. Even if they do, notability doesn't mean we have to have a standalone page and it seems far more natural to cover this within the article on the war (or if that gets too long, a spinoff like international reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war). I'm not sure there's that much to merge—foreign visits are already covered in the parent article, and I prefer the prose format there to this very short list—but that's for editors of the merge target to decide. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it really counts as "news" in the sense of WP:NOTNEWS. Of course we can't predict future history books, but it seems likely that the actions of world leaders to this conflict will be considered to have lasting resonance in the future. News might be a page describing day to day statements by the politicians etc. JMWt (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the cited sources are literally news reports. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actions, yes; visits, not so much. The Middle East tour by Blinken was probably actually more notable and impactful (and more discussed) than some of entries here of discernably less geopolitical import. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous sources indicate that these visits are 'solidarity visits', similar to when leaders visited Ukraine at the onset of the Russian invasion. The last time so many leaders visited Israel in such a short time was during the funeral of Shimon Peres. The last time the British Prime Minister visited Israel was more than 10 years ago. Haaretz, refers to it as the 'Ukraine Syndrome'. Orwell1 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why does that mean we should have a standalone list of them? – Joe (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is notable and many leaders have already done it, including three of the superpower leaders (US, UK, and France). Visiting a state at a state of war involves risks. During the visit, the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, had to take cover in a bomb shelter as a missile alarm sounded. Additionally, when he was about to take off, another rocket alarm went off, leading all German officials to lie face down on the floor with their hands over their heads. These visits are not regular visits. Orwell1 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There exist only two other extant "List of serving heads of state and government ..."-style articles in the past, and both are for the Ukraine war. [22][23] There are two possible conclusions to be drawn from this, since political visits have always existed and are not a novel thing: 1) such content was duly ignored in the past as the news cycle-fed churnalistic dross that it is and this content type has only reared its ugly head with the massive over-fixation on Ukraine and now Gaza. 2) this is super relevant and notable content and this encyclopedia has been missing a massive trick in not snapping up all the news re: all the various visits by foreign heads of state in the past wars of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The media's intense focus on Gaza Wars didn't begin with the current conflict; all previous wars received significant media coverage. However, in no previous Gaza war have we seen so many leaders visiting Israel to express their solidarity. In the 2008-2009 Gaza War, only President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Israel, and that was long before Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were within the war zone (as rocket attacks on these cities began only in 2012). Sarkozy's visit at that time was primarily aimed at promoting a truce between the conflicting parties rather than showing solidarity with Israel.

Similarly, during the subsequent Gaza War of 2014, which was the deadliest until this current conflict, no other world leaders or heads of state visited Israel, except for Ban Ki-moon, who served as the UN Secretary-General. Ban Ki-moon's visit was also focused on promoting a truce, rather than taking a stand with Israel.

In this war, things are indeed different. The number of leaders who have already come to Israel is much higher, and their primary purpose in visiting is to express their solidarity. This is a significant departure from previous wars. Orwell1 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg. Loksmythe (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested seems ok. For what this is, we can just cut and paste the chart into the article and not lose anything, there is no sort of discussion going on around why these are notable enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think that a list of visiting heads of state and government is quite the contrary of "not notable. Furthermore, evidently one can find ample sources in reference to each visiting head of state. I'm certain a quick google search will find you dozens of articles from the most respected to the least respected News regarding the visit of US president Joe Biden, French President Macron, British PM Sunak, EU president... etc.

Indeed, this actually seems to be an interesting method of the West showing solidarity with its allies, in similar fashion to visits to Ukraine following the Russian invasion.

Indeed there is such a Wikipedia article: List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thus this article can refer and build up from that article. This is not the first time such an article has been created.

Furthermore there are also sources that directly refer to list of leaders, and there are still leaders visiting and thus this article has potential for growth. The Czech and Austrian leaders visited recently and thus topic grows... [24] (Source regarding Czech and Austrian leaders) Homerethegreat (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war or another appropriate article per Joe. No reason for this list—which is essentially a synthesis of news reports—to have its own page. International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war might be another possible merge target. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or 2023 Israel-Hamas war; doesn't make sense as a standalone article. DFlhb (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3811 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Visits by foreign leaders - unnecessary fork, no significance per se. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Even though there may be media coverage on individual visits and pairs, Longharnsg's links don't back up an NLIST pass: the articles don't constitute covering a group or set of leaders' visits. The WSJ one doesn't even discuss them. SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above as an ATD. // Timothy :: talk 08:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, per feedback. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Caselli[edit]

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

Stefano Caselli

This biography of a living person of a cartoonist has no footnotes, and footnotes are required for biographies of living persons. It does not qualify for proposed deletion of BLPs because it has external links. They have been checked, and they do not contain significant coverage by independent sources. Two of them appear to be listings of his works, which do not verify basic information.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.comics.org	A listing of all of his comic books	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	stekart.blogspot.com	Doesn't appear to mention him, but may be his blog	No	No	?	No
3	comicbookdb.com	Aooears to be another listing of his comics	Yes	No	Yes	No

This article has been tagged as needing better references since 2008. The Heymann criterion will be three independent reliable sources verifying basic biographical information and providing significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear in the kinds of independent RS that we need. Or at least I don't see them. JMWt (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. His work is prolific and highly successful, he seems to be a valued guest at festivals, but finding sources is hard. I found this: [25] which although cast partly as an interview is an extended in-depth piece by a named author, though I have no idea how we rate the source. Elemimele (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely due to the lack of independent biographical sources. We shouldn't blaze the trail in writing biographies of living people, there have been too many problems caused by this. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Responding to talk page ping. In my searches for sources, the sources I found largely were passing mentions in book reviews that mention he illustrated the book (example from Publishers Weekly and example from Booklist) or were about a different person with the same name, a finance professor at Bocconi University. (example). Cunard (talk) 00:19, 29 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!} 06:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitha Jewellery[edit]

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

Company fails WP:NCORP in that there are insufficient references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Assessment of the references is below. I was going to send this to AfD a week ago when recommending the Chairman for deletion, but kept this for a possible redirect as WP:ATD. After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessement:

1. Economic Times, brief mention (one sentence). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

2. Hans India, interview with the Chairman of the company and fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on the byline. Likely a PR piece.

3. Sakshi, another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above.

4. Economic Times, company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg. Fails CORPDEPTH.

5. DT Next, written by the Chairman of the company. Not independent.

6. New Indian Express, Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication.

7. Deccan Chronicle, a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism. Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening.

8. India Today, this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company.

9. Tamil Samayam, another article about a robbery.

10. Hindustan Times, article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities. This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself.

11. The Hindu, another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.” The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the source assessment by the nominator. None of the coverage count towards notability criteria for companies. Fails WP:NCORP. 42.107.197.36 (talk) 06:17, 30 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 Wipeout (2008 game show)#Episodes. It wasn't specified where to Redirect this article but this was the previous redirect that existed before being reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout (season 1)[edit]

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

I don’t even know what to make of this. Absolutely unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. The title of the article does not match the content. A redirect that has been in place is constantly being reverted. This needs to be given the Old Yeller treatment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we !vote to keep, we'd need to discuss the article title. Obviously, it's not just season one. Beyond that, the Wipeout show has numerous iterations, so we'd do something like 'List of Wipeout (2008) episodes'. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect or Delete: As per previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35#Wipeout season articles. Might be a wise idea to indefinitely protect all the season articles along with Wipeout Australia and List of Wipeout Canada episodes to prevent IPs continuing on with this nonsense any longer. This has been going on the past 2-3 years with all these articles and is the same FANCRUFT/unsourced/INDISCRIMINATE/NOTPLOT/etc. every single time the redirect(s) are removed. Magitroopa (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, per Magitroopa. Wikishovel (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per the previous two users...this is an indiscriminate list and users continually expanding it means the article as it is cannot stand. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and I wouldn't know where to look to find this much information on each episode, short of sitting with a notepad and writing it down as they aired, which makes this OR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know that’s exactly how this information was compiled… Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to season articles. Survivor:_Borneo#Season_summary shows how a show like Survivor list who was voted out each episode in a chart in the main article for each season along with with summaries per episode afterwards. Dream Focus 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was sourced then its still just WP:FANCRUFT. The whole thing could be sumarized into a singular table but its still unsourced WP:OR. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:49, 31 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 per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcadion pseudinfernale[edit]

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

No information on subject whatsoever. Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer. @Aydoh8: please stop nominating species articles for deletion. The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like "no information on subject" and "a complete waste of time" have no basis in policy. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort. @Aydoh8: please consider this a warning. You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy. None of these is acceptable in the long term. If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 27 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 List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Osegueda[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has made at least one appearance for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, El Salvador, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 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 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zila Lafleur[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 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 List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeisha Pearson[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 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 Triplex locomotive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2-8-8-8-2[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Most material online about this are fansites. While there are mentions about this wheel-type in books, I found nothing significant. This situation is proof that Redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{comment) Chris Troutman did simple redirecting, and I undid (opposed) his/her edit, and soon he/she did this request. This article stores the contents of Whyte notation along with other articles related to Whyte notation. (You can see these articles with Template:Whyte types.) Chris troutman's edit will confuse the structure of the article group, so it's best to keep it as an independent article.--マイヤー式機関車 (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Triplex locomotive. I agree that this is not an independently notable configuration, but disagree with the proposed redirect target. I note that 2-8-8-8-8-8-2 points to a section of Triplex locomotive, (while 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 points to Whyte notation but is discussed at Triplex locomotive). I see no reason why 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4) could not be merged and integrated into Triplex locomotive. BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 likewise) is notable, in large part because it's a node within the wheel arrangement lists at Whyte notation / Category:Whyte notation and so its omission would be a visible failing for us. They're obscure, but that's not the same as non-notable.
These should definitely be here as either articles or redirects to triplex locomotive. We might justify them as articles owing to strict WP:N, but as both wheel arrangements were only ever used for these Mallets they'd only end up as three triplicated copies of content that would need to be in triplex locomotive (or maybe triplex Mallet locomotive?) anyway. Three articles to describe a physical object where there were only ever four instances of it? So I'd support merging and redirect, which would be a fairly simple editorial job.
Separately, I'd also supporting splitting triplex locomotive into triplex Mallet locomotive (or Triplex Mallet locomotive, as a proper name) for the Baldwin Mallets and maybe triplex and quadruplex locomotives for the others. The existing triplex locomotive#Expanding the concept section has poor coherence between the sub-sections, the Mallets have a strongly related development history, even the unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2, but the various turbine, steam motor and Garratt designs do not. Such a split is unlikely to happen (or at least, to be done well) as it would require deep subject knowledge in some obscure corners (something that WP has lost the ability to do in recent years).
I would find it hard to justify Category:2-8-8-8-2 locomotives, per WP:SMALLCAT.
Chris Troutman is wrong here on every point. This was also a very bad edit: to have this same AfD on a different article first but to not discuss it through AfD, to claim WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, to redirect it to the wrong target and then to do what should have been a merge and redirect but skipping the tiresome 'merge' part that requires doing some editing work – that's shoddy editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't decide whether to keep it or redirect it to Triplex locomotive. I created Triplex Mallet Locomotive as a redirect to Triplex locomotive. The split of the Triplex locomotive article was done independently of this discussion, as there was a long discussion on the Talk page of the Triplex page. There is now a new article Multiplex locomotive which includes all the old Expanding the Concept sections. The unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 and other designs based on the George R. Henderson patent have nothing to do with a Mallet locomotive, as they have a jointed boiler. They are now also included in the Multiplex locomotive page. Pechristener (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Triplex locomotive: seems like there is ample coverage there, it's basically the same thing. Just made by different companies. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to triplex locomotive per Andy Dingley, although I'm not seeing too much that needs merging. The triplex article already covers much of the same ground. What remains are the classifications, which are unsourced... and, because only three were built in the US, I would guess that they'd be pretty hard to source. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not too hard to source, as people do tend to write more about unicorns. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you think otherwise and hope you can find them; a quick Google search for two revealed nothing useful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Andy Dingley. I also particularly endorse their final paragraph and explicitly reject the statement in the nomination that this somehow proves redirects are costly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge to Triplex locomotive. I'll also note that WP:COSTLY mostly applies to creating redirects, and should almost never be considered as reasoning for deleting history or otherwise passing up an excellent WP:ATD. —siro χ o 05:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Oceaunz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage outside FIFA appears to be limited to store listings and this cited article that reads like a press release. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, outside of FIFA and the FIFA store, it's all press releases or blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 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 Peterborough Phantoms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Peterborough Phantoms season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 19 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, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peterborough Phantoms, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 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 Guildford Flames. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Guildford Flames season[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 19 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, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Chelmsford Chieftains~~Guildford Flames, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) (corrected)[reply]

Also seems to be consistent with pretty much every season that does not have a standalone article but does have something at the title, compare:

List of redirects
Guildford Flames (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) Pepsi Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2007–08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2008–09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2009–10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2009-10 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2007-08 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2008-09 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2007–08 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2007–08 (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2007-08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2009-10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2008–09 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2008-09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2000–01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2010–11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2011–12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2006–07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2000-01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2010-11 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) Guildford Flames Season 2011-12 (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2013–14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2014–15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2015–16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) List of Guildford Flames records (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2018–19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2019–20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2020–21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2021–22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links \| edit) 2000–01 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2006–07 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2007–08 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2008–09 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2009–10 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2010–11 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2011–12 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2013–14 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2014–15 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2015–16 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2018–19 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit) 2019–20 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links \| edit)

List of redirects

Guildford Flames (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
Pepsi Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2007–08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2008–09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2009–10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2009-10 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2007-08 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2008-09 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2007–08 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- Guildford Flames Season 2007–08 (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2007-08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2009-10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2008–09 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2008-09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2000–01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2010–11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2011–12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2006–07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2000-01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2010-11 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2011-12 (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2013–14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2014–15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2015–16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
List of Guildford Flames records (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2006-07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2010-11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2011-12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2013-14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2014-15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2015-16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2018–19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2018-19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2019–20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2019-20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2020–21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2020-21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2021–22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2021-22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
- 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
2000–01 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2006–07 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2007–08 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2008–09 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2009–10 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2010–11 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2011–12 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2013–14 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2014–15 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2015–16 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2018–19 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
2019–20 Guildford Flames (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

((Guildford Flames))

Alpha3031, did you mean Guildford Flames? I don't see a connection with Chelmsford Chieftains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I did thank you Liz. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:38, 31 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 Chelmsford Chieftains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Chelmsford Chieftains season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content so no need to salvage information with merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 19 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, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chelmsford Chieftains, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Also noting that 1987–88 Chelmsford Chieftains season was redirected to the same target back in Feb 2021 for much the same reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 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 Invicta Dynamos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 12 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!} 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a message on my talk page, by "higher level article" I mean something like either Invicta Dynamos or Invicta Dynamos seasons (I'm not familiar with naming conventions in this topic area so it may exist under a different title), using these articles to form the basis of such an article if it doesn't exist already. I don't have strong opinions what the best target is, just that I see merging somewhere as better for our readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 19 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, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Invicta Dynamos. I want to agree with Thryduulf that merge would be approrpiate, but I considered how we would do that, and what would be merged and it was quite hard to see which of this information should be included on the parent page. These pages are uniformly sourced to the club's own page, [26] which is neither secondary nor independent, and clearly not multiple either. There is thus no evidence that any of this level of detail is notable per WP:GNG. It could all be deleted per policy. Anyone interested in things like which players in the team were "iced" in a certain year should look at the source of the information, the above web site. But it is not notable information for an encyclopaedic article. However, on the basis that an editor could, in the future, perhaps find something notable to harvest from these pages, and with independent, secondary reliable sources, a WP:ATD of redirect would preserve the edit history on these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invicta Dynamos for now. If content is added to a specific section or another more general page, can be retargeted then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 29 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.