< September 23	September 25 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Lewis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Unclear what an administrator even does, or why it's a notable position. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. The cabinet list on the USVI government website lists the island administrators as staff, not as cabinet members, so it isn't an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL — an article would be acceptable if it were reliably sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG, but the government press release announcing his appointment to the position is not sufficient all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Not enough sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:20, 1 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boombox (Sirius)[edit]

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

Subject seemingly does not meet any GNG due to a lack of secondary sourcing. Perhaps redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels.? Let'srun (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable Sirius XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). There certainly have been a lot of these… (Even in the old days when NRADIO was given more "authority" than it actually had and overpresumed notability for, for instance, many broadcast stations, it still actually presumed non-notability for satellite radio channels — how these articles survived that is beyond me.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SportsCenter#Other editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscenter AM[edit]

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

Unable to find any secondary sources for this defunct radio show, and as such it fails WP:GNG. As it shares the same name as certain editions of SportsCenter, I oppose a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or two to SportsCenter § Other editions, which already covers radio programming. This avoids nom's concern about similar names because SportsCenter:AM is also covered in that article. (I just set up that redirect after investigating this article, the coverage was already there). —siro χ o 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SportsCenter § Other editions and redirect to SportsCenter: in terms of whether there should be a redirect or not, the ambiguity with the similarly-titled SportsCenter:AM TV program (which some sources actually refer to as SportsCenter AM as well), which is why the redirect should not necessarily be to a separate section (the TV version is covered in SportsCenter § History instead) is all but canceled out by the fact that neither program has any truly separate notability from the wider SportsCenter franchise anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10 (Southern Cross Austereo)#Programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Focus[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. I only have added 2 references to the article so far, and I hope that someone expands the article. Tagged for additional citations and updating since January 2023. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Southern Cross Ten#Programming~~, where it is mentioned, as an alternative to deletion. (This was actually created as a redirect—though not to a section at the time—in 2007, and has only been a separate article since 2016.) I don't think that would necessarily close the door to a separate article if sufficient significant coverage is found for a potential expansion, but until then… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, that would be 10 (Southern Cross Austereo)#Programming I propose a redirect to. These rebrandings can throw me off at times… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, perhaps merge a bit more to 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) § Programming (Note to closer, this is the target as Southern Cross Ten § Programming, just bypassing the redirect). Suggest categorizing redirect with ((r with possibilties)) —siro χ o 23:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sport Buffet[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, with a complete lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regional syndication doesn't mean much for notability if the significant coverage isn't there. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn by nominator. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Berona's War[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a book series, of which one, the Wired review, is significant coverage. I cannot find other coverage, however, and think that this does not meet WP:NBOOK. Tacyarg (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have two or more reviews in RS with SIGCOV, meeting WP:NBOOK#C1 so far I count 3. While the reviews focus on a single entry (Field Guide), I think keeping it at this title is best.
1. Wired mentioned above and linked in article.
2. Publisher's Weekly [1]
3. Comics Bulletin [2] from January 2011, reliable in this time period.

Note, there's also a review from a long-running blog published by a professional freelance writer, which may be usable.[3]

—siro χ o 00:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom). Thanks - I could only find the Wired review, and agree 2+ reviews meets the first criterion. Tacyarg (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama crew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication this meets WP:NLIST. We're not IMDB; we don't simply retain contextless credits lists of everyone who's ever worked on a longrunning TV series. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The names of the writers and directors can be where the episodes are listed. Dream Focus 01:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sweet media of Wikipedia, the names of the writers and directors are in the List of Futurama episodes, producers and creators in the main article, so this list is pointless and redundant ... and redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails NLIST as nom has said. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Conyo14 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Both is redundant with all of infromation being listed on either the main article or episode list and with only one source fail WP:NLIST. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information is presented in Futurama, but better. While this article could be useful as a navigational aid, at this point it appears it's better suited to keep it in the article about the show. Jacona (talk) 20:29, 1 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 3. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Curry[edit]

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

Nearly all of the articles cited on this page are from when he launched his campaign. Running for office doesn't make you notable and he certainly wasn't notable beforehand, so the only argument would be that his candidacy makes him notable, and it doesn't seem like he's gotten much coverage since he announced. In my opinion he fails WP:GNG and WP:1E. Think about it: if he loses this race, is anyone going to be searching his name on Wikipedia in 10 years? I just don't think the fact that he happened to be the first candidate in the race is enough for a Wikipedia page. Plus, a lot of the information here could be moved to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 3, and we could have this page redirect there. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TulsaPoliticsFan, who previously proposed deletion for this page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A resume, being in the air force or a banker are not notable. A political candidate is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I PRODed the article a while back because most candidates running for office don't pass GNG. I don't think he's gotten any closer to meeting GNG since I PRODed it.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. It's too early to tell if he'll even make the ballot for the primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirect I originally made this article because Curry has been a pretty direct subject of an article in about every major publication in America. I would change it to a redirect for now, and possibly we could consider changing this back to a standalone article if Curry performs well and becomes more notable to the point where he passes the tests better. GeorgeBailey (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose a redirect given how early it is in the race under WP:TOOSOON and also WP:UNDUE because he is currently one of 8 declared challengers to Santos. As it currently stands, he'd have to not only perform well but outright win the race as unsuccessful candidates are not considered notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for declaring candidacies in future elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. He could still drop out of the race in the future, stay in the race but lose the primary, or win the primary but go on to lose the general election, so a candidate in a primary isn't permanently notable for that in and of itself. But this doesn't make any serious claim that he had preexisting notability that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of a candidacy, nor does it evince a reason why his candidacy would be of such uniquely enduring importance that people would still be looking for information about it ten years from now even if he loses. So obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2024 if he wins the general election, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an article as of September 2023. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 3 as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for the United States House of Representatives. Any relevant information can be added there. --Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 police forces of the United Kingdom#Wales. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Police forces of Wales[edit]

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

Low-quality article, basically just a list of the four police forces in Wales which some minor copy and paste information and history and the BTP and then some minor discussion about a potential merger. Note that there is no such article for England, which is much larger and has many more police forces.

Overall article is fluff. Elshad (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of scope to improve the article including the state of policing in Wales and debates on the devolution of policing and on an all-Wales police force. Where would info on these topics go if this article were to be deleted?

Perhaps a better action would be to rename the article "Policing in Wales" and improve it.

Examples of potential additional sources for improvement;

[4], [5], [6], [7] Titus Gold (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Titus Gold (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep, unnecessary deletion. If there is an issue about paraphrasing then please attempt to rewrite, deletion isn't the solution. The article holds merit because of it's accumulation of information. Cltjames (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would be happy with a move to Policing in Wales. Elshad (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you could withdraw the nomination and request speedy close, and then start a WP:RM move discussion on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of police forces of the United Kingdom#Wales – the exact topic, police forces (not generalised policing), is not clearly notable separately and may be a fork. Welsh police forces aren't majorly different from those in England by law, so better served in a UK article when specifically on police forces. The content of this article is overwhelmingly copy-and-pasted content, word by word, from the leads of the four police forces with no new content (to justify a separate article), with an extra sentence or two. The only prospect of an article under this title is a list of four entries, which would better redirect to a UK list. Supportive, in principle, of a "Law enforcement/Policing in Wales" article (as suggested above, with citations on the generalised topic), but I don't see any current content in this article being retained in an article on that topic (content here is already at the police forces' articles), outside just listing the four forces and the extra two sentences already which can be elsewhere. If that article is made (even by me), likely a re-start, then this can be redirected there when that time comes. (Does this divergent vote, prevent a suggested withdrawal now?) Dank Jae 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I agree with the above reasoning, and would prefer a delete with a new article being created later if sufficient material found. Elshad (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of police forces of the United Kingdom - Per DankJae. There is no need for this hived off article, and that article contains the substantive topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be helpful if the AfD nominator were to put up valid grounds for deletion. The nomination seems to be based on the quality of the article rather than deletion policy, see WP:DEL#REASON. Without such reason(s) it's difficult to give an opinion and there may be cause for a procedural keep. Rupples (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as their are opinions to Keep, Delete and Redirect this article (looking beyond bolded statement).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of police forces of the United Kingdom#Wales as a plausible search term. The map could be merged if people find it useful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 1 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Voyage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as the article lacks sufficient reliable coverage and is WP:TOOSOON for an upcoming game. The article has one cited reliable source in the vein of WP:VG/S and is otherwise largely based on primary sources. A WP:BEFORE does not yield much in terms of coverage, but I note the Gamestar article was in German so welcome any help with non-English coverage if the game originates from that background. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article creator had one single edit, that edit being the creation of the article. Very possible conflict of interest, and I'm not seeing any notability. NegativeMP1 23:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for any interested parties to work on until appropriate for article space. - Indefensible (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Author) After creating this new page, I noticed that some of the development team members have previously worked also on the Titanic: Honor and Glory virtual museum software/videogame. Should we unite them? Should we create an umbrella-page for all this project that are team related (because they are creating several of this, even some other for further ships)?

I stopped because I don't know how to proceed, now that I'm seeing so many projects of the same type been sponsorized in the recent months. Don't worry, I wasn't payed nor contacted for this, I just saw this new project announced on YT and it was just... impressive (featuring even more characteristics than the Titanic one that I even downloaded and explored for months... and I thaught I had already seen all the best simulations possible).

Thank you for your attention.

@Vrxces @NegativeMP1 @Indefensible @Explicit

- LucaLindholm (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify both in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to draftify both and work on the pages until they have sufficient coverage. Merging them is not suitable unless they are related through a common studio or series. Combining loosely related pages to gather enough secondary content to establish notability isn't good form. The games are interesting, so I hope that there will be enough material to create comprehensive pages eventually! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify right now the sourcing just isn't there. It's possible on release it'll garner the coverage for an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of mountains of East Antarctica. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Marston[edit]

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

Zero SIGCOV, cannot possibly be notable. Alternatively, merge into List of mountains of East Antarctica Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And frankly it's time we took a harder look at all of these mass-created Antarctica locations that are sourced solely to GNIS, an unreliable source. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely overindex them, but you’d need to be an SME to choose which ones to delete en masse and avoid a trainwreck, as there are (sigcov-inclusive) reference materials made by scientists and mountaineers. Maybe use a heatmap of what places humans have visited? Mach61 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Homicide and Serious Crime Command. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major investigation team (Metropolitan Police)[edit]

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

Cannot find much reliable information on this topic, limited to a single glossary entry here, and a reference to ***Murder*** (not Major) investigation teams here. Single provided reference is also dead. Overall, I do not think this topic is notable enough to warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Homicide and Serious Crime Command. --Canley (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Metropolitan Police for now; they appear to still be in operation based on news results so I do not think Homicide and Serious Crime Command is the correct target. Possibly there is enough material out there to put together a standalone article in the future again. - Indefensible (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Homicide and Serious Crime Command. There is no value in deleting information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, two different Merge targets argued for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Raúl Colombo[edit]

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

Lack of Wikipedia:Notability. This "cup" was not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between a national team (Argentina) and a regional/combined team (Rio de Janeiro) with no significative relevance (in fact, the AFA does not consider it an official match). This page could be merged into Argentina national football team results (1940–1959) which lists all the unofficial matches of Argentina during that period. Fma12 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Argentina, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that the competition lacks notably. However, a more appropriate article for a merge, should that be the outcome, would be Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches) which includes all unofficial matches of the Argentina national team. The article suggested only includes official results for the period. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am against deleting the Copa Raul Colombo article for one reason: this match in some sources such as World Football Elo Ratings is considered a Full A game between Brazil and Argentina. I agree that for the Argentine team itself the relevance is low, but greater clarification of what this match was about, in my opinion, is necessary. It is also fundamental to remember that at that time, state teams in Brazil had a lot of prestige. Svartner (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a redirect as well. Giant Snowman 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches) I feel Stevie fae Scotland makes a good case for a redirect, although I strongly suggest to merge the lead paragraph to the article. As the unofficial matches article has no prose on lead, it would help to bulk that a bit. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I strongly support user:Govvy suggestion. A redirect to the unofficial matches article would be the most appropriate idea.
Fma12 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ifish[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014 DonaldD23 talk to me 19:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Australia. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Paul Worsteling article, he's more notable.Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability.Keep changed per sources found by Cunard and some of them I was able to confirm by directly searching for the article's titles in Google. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Worsteling. Very little real coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "IFISH crew have a ball in the Bay". Hervey Bay Observer. 2014-12-08. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "EVERY minute spent on the water inside Fraser Island was described as “amazing” by Paul Worsteling from IFISH with Tackleworld. The Australian and international fishing television show, which has almost 300,000 Facebook followers, spent four days filming a segment in Hervey Bay this month, chasing golden trevally, queenfish, mac tuna and variety of reef fish. The Melbourne-based crew, made up of Paul, his son Jet, wife Christy, cameraman, producer and sound tech, jumped on board Hervey Bay Fly and Sportfishing with local guide and Observer Fish Tales columnist Andrew Chorley as their host. ... IFISH with Tackleworld has just started filming its 10th season on Australian and international television. They produce 10 one-hour episodes for channel 10 and 30, half-hour episodes for ONE every year."
2. Vickery, Colin (2010-09-01). "Must See". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "All of those who used to love Rex Hunt kissing fish will find plenty to like in iFish. In this first episode of series five, host Paul Worsteling visits some favourite fishing spots including South Australia's Arno Bay with cricket legend Merv Hughes, as well as Lord Howe Island, Gladstone in Queensland and Vanuatu. Fish on the iFish hit list include bluefish, barramundi, elephant fish, giant trevally and red bass. The way Worsteling goes off when he lands a monster 99cm snapper, you'd swear it was better than sex."
3. Articles about Logie Awards nominations:
  1. "Series fishing for glory on TV". Cranbourne Leader. 2012-04-04. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
    During the Logie Awards of 2012, Ifish received a nomination for the Logie Award for Most Popular Lifestyle Program. The article notes: "Local fishing icon Paul Worsteling says he's still pinching himself after his series made the top five for one of television's top gongs. IFISH TV has been nominated for a Logie award for most popular lifestyle program against seasoned campaigners Better Homes and Gardens, Getaway, Selling Houses Australia and Ready Steady Cook. ... The nomination is believed to be the first time a fishing program has made the final five of the prestigious award."
  2. Precel, Nicole (2012-12-05). "Cranbourne - TV fisherman Paul angling for awards success". Cranbourne Leader. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
    The article notes: "HE cast his first fishing line at 12 -- and 27 years later, professional fisherman Paul Worsteling has been nominated for two Logie awards for his TV show IFISH with TackleWorld."
4. Mortimer, Luke (2021-01-28). "Coast Gets Rave Reviews". Gold Coast Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "THE Gold Coast’s offshore and estuary fishing grounds will get a valuable plug across the country after Australia’s top fishing show jetted north for a last-minute visit. iFish, which screens on Network 10 and YouTube, will air two episodes, featuring a hunt for marlin about 50km off the city and catching prawns on the Logan River. ... Before long, iFish was gearing up at Labrador to head out alongside Coast fishers boasting considerable local knowledge. ... Come Tuesday – Australia Day – iFish set off on a catamaran chasing black marlin."
5. Oliver, Robin (2008-09-08). "Pay TV - Saturday 13 September". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The review notes: "This fast-moving series is supposedly for fisherfolk at all levels but really it is more for those who can afford to visit the top spots, hire the best boats and meet knowledgeable skippers. Paul Worsteling visits Runaway Bay on the Gold Coast and searches for blue-eye trevalla. Then it's off early to Port Phillip Bay, where the gummy sharks seem anxious to be on telly."
6. Newsome, Brad (2010-09-02). "Saturday, September 4 - Pay TV". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The review notes: "Why would you start a series with clips from last season? It's cheap, I suppose. This episode has host Paul Worsteling catching snapper in South Australia (with Merv Hughes), barramundi in Queensland and the poor old elephant fish in Victoria."
7. Mortimer, Luke (2021-01-28). "iFish host Paul Worsteling and executive producer Tom Hughes hit Gold Coast during marlin run". Gold Coast Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "iFish, which screens on Network 10 and YouTube, will air two episodes, featuring a hunt for marlin about 50km off the city and catching prawns on the Logan River. Executive producer Tom Hughes said he and host Paul Worsteling heard last Wednesday marlin were “going off” on the Coast. ... Before long, iFish was gearing up at Labrador to head out alongside Coast fishers boasting considerable local knowledge. ... Come Tuesday – Australia Day – iFish set off on a catamaran chasing black marlin. ... The episodes are due to screen in the next 10 weeks."
8. "IFISH host stops in Noosa to film episode". Noosa News. 2016-10-07. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "THE name Paul Worsteling may not seem like a recognisable one to most but if you asked any angler they would know Paul is the host of one of Australia’s most popular fishing shows IFISH with Tackleworld. Last week Paul, his wife Christy, son Jet and IFISH crew stopped in Noosa to film an episode for this year’s show."
9. "Fishing royalty is visiting". Fraser Coast Chronicle. 2013-10-09. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "Arguably one of Australia’s most widely recognised fishermen, Worsteling is the host of Network Ten’s popular IFish show and is on Fraser Island chasing tailor and filming a couple of family TV specials with his fishing-mad family and two-man film crew. ... Now in its ninth season, IFish dominates television screens five days a week across the country on the Ten Network and Foxtel’s Lifestyle show. The Fraser Island shows are expected to screen later in the year."
10. Coghlan, Scott (2013-08-04). "TV host lured - to boat show". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "Worsteling hosts the TV show IFISH and will attend the October 11-13 event at the Mandurah Offshore Fishing and Sailing Club. ... IFISH covers all kinds of fishing fresh and saltwater, boat and land-based and basically everything in between. All of which makes Worsteling the ideal guest at the show."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ifish to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard, I tried accessing those archived pages and I just came up against errors saying "This page isn’t working". I was able to find some by directly searching using the article's headings. Fishing royalty Paul Worsteling is filming Fraser Island, iFish host Paul Worsteling and executive producer Tom Hughes hit Gold Coast during marlin run and IFISH crew members have a ball in Hervey Bay. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Happily888 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show passes WP:GNG. The article does need some expansion and updates, although significant coverage in reliable sources above does indicate that iFish is notable and should not be deleted. Happily888 (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northeastern Ukraine campaign. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Romny[edit]

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

No real battle occurred; article merely discusses various incidents during the occupation period. Notability as independent topic is rather dubious. Article had been created by an editor who has been involved in similar cases in the past. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete it does look not notable to me. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does look questionable. WP:NOTNEWS. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the incidents are unconnected, nor was there a battle by any means. The whole article should be merged and pasted to a new section about Romny Raion in Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast. Jebiguess (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, merge. Jebiguess (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign, as appropriate. Searching for the exact title finds nothing significant. —Michael Z. 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign as per Michael Z BHC (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge as two different target articles are suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast#Romny Raion looks the easiest, most of the material is already there. But further reorganization and merges of both targets are still possible based on the different ongoing discussions. - Indefensible (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usiris (Persian)[edit]

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

If there's only one classical source, then that doesn't bode well for notability does it? The subject does not seem notable; commanding an army and getting defeated is not in itself enough to confer notability and the subject fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe is not uncommon for historical subjects of certain periods to be mentioned in only one secondary source. E.g check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menostanes, he is also present in one classical source and also known for being defeated by Megabyzus Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez (talk · contribs · count) is correct. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Megabyzus. While it's not unusual for an individual's name to appear only in one early source, the lack of mention in modern secondary sources is a bit concerning. He is mentioned in passing at Encyclopædia Iranica under Artaxerxes I. Definitely more notable than someone who played six cricket matches for money in the 1900s, which I'm aware is WP:ATA, but I'm saying it anyway.
Dude will probably be a permastub unless someone can dig up his name in Farsi and there happens to be more about him in that language. The article actually goes into more detail than either of the modern sources, which is not super uncommon for ancient folk, since editors tend to rely on freely available early sources as starting points. Folly Mox (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sources listed are, IMO, just enough to establish WP:N. The fact that additional sources are likely to be non-English (and therefore difficult for me to search) and offline is enough for me to vote to keep it. Jacona (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Gaynor[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not found online reviews of her book, and if there's only a single book there would not be notability under WP:AUTHOR. There might be notability as a businesswoman, however, or for the business? Ebscosearch finds two reviews of her baking business: Sweet Charity. By: Stein, Victoria, O, The Oprah Magazine, 15313247, Sep2003, Vol. 4, Issue 9 & The Sweet Spot. By: Reynolds, Jonathan. New York Times Magazine. 10/27/2002, Vol. 152 Issue 52284, p81. 2p. Proquest also finds another three reviews: CHASING SWEET DREAMS Entrepreneurs find success with hard work and delicious desserts: Black, Rosemary. , New York Daily News; New York, N.Y.. 14 Apr 2002: 17. & Cookies, Cookies, Everywhere, And Plenty of Chips to Eat. Fabricant, Florence. New York Times, New York, N.Y.. 27 June 2001: 2. & EATS: Sax, Irene. New York Daily News; New York, N.Y.. 07 July 2001: 22. There are also four independent sources for this business already in the article, though I think some of these overlap the above. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is no longer orphaned; I connected two links to this article. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 01:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, so now that the article is no longer orphaned, what do you want to happen to it and why?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage in RS such as the NYT to suggest notability for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Gloria Daniel[edit]

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

Beyond winning the Miss Florida beauty pageant and competing at Miss America, not finding any coverage for this subject. Perhaps redirect to the pageant? Let'srun (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft No solid sourcing for the article. I believe notability might be established, but there is just not the sourcing to back this up. PickleG13 (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Florida as insufficient sourcing found for separate article. The image is already on that page. Rupples (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Lal Ahuja[edit]

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

I feel BLP1E is applicable in this context. This specific person (however noble their goals might be) was only ever reported on for getting the Padma Shri award for his social work in feeding patients in Chandigargh which (imo) would not have rose to the prominence that it had without the award. Sohom (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Sohom (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with your rational. But, the page of Padma Shri awardee can't be deleted. --Gazal world (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. BLP1E is written primarily to avoid a NOTNEWS problem. This individual's claim to notability isn't the news coverage as such, so I don't think that's a good argument here; rather, both notability and news coverage are a consequence of the Padma Shri award, which I believe is more than sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #1. However, the coverage is not wonderful, so this isn't as clear-cut as it would be if we could write a more substantive bio. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes ANYBIO as he was awarded Padma Shri. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Álvarez[edit]

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

Álvarez has some coverage from his very brief career in Uruguay but I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find are El Pais, a squad listing, Espectador, another mere listing of him, and Montevideo, which mentions him once in the match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I know very little about football, I wanted to know how Guillermo Álvarez fitted in WP:SPORTBASIC, since I'm reading that the Primera División Uruguaya is the "highest professional football league in Uruguay", but I'm having a difficult time finding independent sources in Spanish. Nación Deportes has some articles with his tags, although I can't find him in them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a possibility of meeting SPORTBASIC but my searches, like yours, seemed to come to dead ends. I'm not sure why Nación Deportes is giving false positive search results like that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanjiku Kanjumba[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Is WP:BLP1E - a would be astronaut. Article majors on her company rather than her. That fails WP:NCORP. Pretty much a puff piece. WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete: Clear case of one event for graduating and working at NASA. Coverage on her company does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing talk about her company. I can't see anything related her company on the references I checked. All the independent sources talked about with significant coverage. Please check it well 102.91.72.18 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO without enough independent sources on his WP:BLP1E Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering why there's seems to be racist in this nomination. Nearly 90% of the references are secondary independent reliable source with a strong significant coverage. [[8]],[[9]] [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]] etc I'm wondering why you are saying so. Young astronomer like her with huge potential that she brings numerous development in astrology need to consider her notability. 102.91.72.18 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [[14]], [[15]], [[16]] and [[17]] are enough to establish notability. Again, young ladies are being encourage to include in Wikipedia. I feel sad when I found that ladies most especially scientists that bring a global development toward astrological science been marginalize by Wikipedia. 102.91.72.18 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With respect, she is neither an astronomer nor an astrologer. She is a wanna-be astronaut, and not a notable one. Your seeking to play the race card is deplorable, and your seeking to play the ageism/sexism card is no better. I should not have to remind you about WP:CIVIL.

In your note above you state that there is nothing about her company. There is, and it fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay my apology of saying racism & Gender. But still more ladies are encourage to have Wikipedia. Please can you tell me what's astrology? She's astrology. One you have bachelor's degree in any rocket science or related you are considered to be called astrologist. 102.91.71.5 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see nothing about her company! Even if there's it's just a mere mentioned. The sources gives a significant coverage than her company. This is not something to argue about it. 102.91.71.5 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are about her compnay so via WP:INHERENT she isnt notable. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Alarcón (footballer)[edit]

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

Alarcón made his WP:FPL debut two years ago, playing less than one minute of football, but has not played since. I can find no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and, at best, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. The best source found was One Football (translated) but it's mostly quotes directly from him and there is very little actual independent analysis. If people are confident that he will be notable very soon then sending to draft could be considered but, since the article is older than 90 days, this would have to be as a result of an AfD per WP:DRAFTIFY (2d). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable politician that doesn't satisfy our criteria for WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Nothing notable about the subject atleast not at the moment. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Political candidates who fail to be elected fail WP:NPOL. Seems to be a WP:ROTM businessman doing his job 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are promotional. Does not meet the guidelines for notability and the SNG for politicians. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just too promotional, sources are only promotional ones. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but nothing else here establishes that he had preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL and doesn't have other SIGCOV to meet GNG or any other guideline I'm aware of. Jacona (talk) 20:40, 1 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. Consensus among the participants is that the article passes WP:GNG, thanks to the expansion by User:Cbl62. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Heindl Sr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, and I would argue WP:GNG. He did not play in the top level of hockey, and while he had awards, they are for non-notable, minor leagues. I would also argue that induction into the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame is also not significant notability, especially with the recent tightening of notability criteria. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree on all counts; two undistinguished seasons in the WHL don't cut it. I go a bit beyond thinking that the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame doesn't confer notability; it's a minor institution, its inclusion in so many articles has always stuck in my craw, and the article itself is a hot mess with only primary sources. No prejudice against merging and redirecting to his son's article. Ravenswing 17:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Might be notable if we had decent sourcing, but we don't. I can't find much [18] is about it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heindl appears to barely meet GNG as a professional athlete in football, in addition to playing semi-professional ice hockey. He is also inducted into multiple halls of fame, and had a lengthy career as a civil servant. Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame Obituary Flibirigit (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... most of which fulfills no notability criteria. Certainly with the deprecation of participation standards, having played in a single season of CFL football for Winnipeg in 1942 (which wasn't actually a professional year, but was a series of local exhibition matches between the Bombers and the "RCAF Bombers") comes nowhere close. Do you have any links providing WP:SIGCOV to the subject? Ravenswing 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find coverage that is at least borderline passing GNG. First of all, he got a lot of coverage across Canada for jumping from the QSHL to the Western Canada Senior Hockey League, nearly causing the QSHL to withdraw from the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association ([19], [20], [21], [22], and a lot of others). And there is other coverage about him, such as [23], [24] and [25], plus Oaktree b's and Flibirigit's. Even if not kept, this should be redirected to his son's article which mentions him, and some additional information about him could be added. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the new sources found, presented above. Just enough for GNG. Played a big part in the Quebec league almost folding/withdrawing as above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite an intriguing character, competing professionally in two different sports. He played professional football at the halfback position for Vancouver in 1941, led two different junior hockey clubs to Memorial Cup championships, served in the Royal Canadian Navy during WWII, and played five years of professional hockey with the Saskatoon Quakers after the war. There are > 2,000 hits from Canadian newspapers reporting on him during the 1940s and 1950s. I've begun a rewrite and have added some sourcing which should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good save and rewrite, clearly passes GNG now. Jenks24 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagwal[edit]

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

Disputed Draftification. I cannot move this back to draft without the AfD process. I am easy with returning this to draft, or with deleting it. However, the creating editor has now moved it twice to mainspace. There is a difficulty with the referencing: first they go Google Books. They ought, if independent and reliable, be found on one of many sales sites. I am having difficulty seeing how s the references used verify the claims made 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollen unrelated except for the broad topic of the Ror, Same creating editor 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gollen[edit]

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

Disputed Draftification. I cannot move this back to draft without the AfD process. I am easy with returning this to draft, or with deleting it. However, the creating editor has now moved it twice to mainspace. There is a difficulty with the referencing: first they go Google Books. They ought, if independent and reliable, be found on one of many sales sites. Second, ref 1 failed verification and ref 2 might refer to Gollen, but it is a different spelling in the reference. Ok, I am being pedantic, but WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagwal unrelated except for the broad topic of the Ror, Same creating editor 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Humans[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, India, Madhya Pradesh, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything that indicated notability for this company. Schwede 66 09:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Nothing from searches. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the reason why we are not able to find this company in the search engine is because of it's name as you know, the SEO work with regards to the keyword a person searches. this company has a very common name that's why people are not able to find it in the searches.Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong women's national under-20 football team[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable junior football team. Sent to draft, banged back into mainspace. PRODed, denied. And yet this incomplete mess of an article continues to survive all attempts to establish a draft article that may one day make the case for notability that today is signally lacking. Draftify or delete - your call, gentle jury... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Hong Kong women's national football team. – Teratix ₵ 02:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The U20s team was only established 2023. All the other references to the team in the article are actually the under-19 team but there isn't an article for it. The article as is isn't ready for mainspace but I think the topic is notable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Stevie. Giant Snowman 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Stevie.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article after opening a section for the team in Hong Kong women's national football team, but without the statistics. If the section is developed and there is eventually enough information for a separate article, it can be recreated. I have seen a number of draft pages and I'm not convinced they are an efficient way of handling new or borderline topics. My perception is that drafts are largely ignored and become so much unnecessary clutter. Development of the topic within an established article would always be my approach unless there are policy/process limitations to be considered. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, new team that will certainly be noteable soon.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no reason why this page can’t stay but all these pages can:

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE on its own is not a good enough reason to keep. It would be better to prove that the article meets WP:GNG by providing sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:OSE it says,

“If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.

Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.”

And the article we are discussing belongs to this category:

- Category:Asian women's national under-20 association football teams

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your claim that "most are notable" in that category; there's no evidence to suggest that our community believes most of these are notable. I've searched the records for AfDs relating to football and I can't see that any of these Asian under-20 teams have been subject to AfD before, therefore no consensus yet exists. This AfD is 'testing the water' as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mean that most pages in that category are not notable, and that at least 13+ (out of 26) pages there should be deleted (and also 20+ pages in this category)? Well… that’s ok with me, since the main reason I oppose the deletion of this page is that I see potential unfairness and gender/racial biases there, and deleting most of them looks fairer to me. However, I still have doubts about the notion “there's no evidence to suggest that our community believes most of these are notable.” The fact that none of these Asian under-20 teams have been subject to AfD before probably means that our community believes they are noble and should stay…

Moreover, as I’ve quoted per WP:OSE:

“If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.”

It seems also true that,

“If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main team in Asian under-20 teams has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.”

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - no evidence of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources (see WP:IS, WP:RS). Not yet notable per WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer “JJ” Leigh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any sources online. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the article is an WP:AUTOBIO. ([26]) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 15:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this individual. Google keeps bringing up hits from the Just Jared website, or hits from the Friends tv show. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.rarepeace.com/post/20-important-female-led-rock-bands-you-should-know Katiechainsaw (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.soundcloud.com/25000miles/interview-with-mande-elaine-jj-from-the-devotchkas Katiechainsaw (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there’s plenty of other links - either under my old nickname JJ I don’t know what you need to keep my bands page or mine up… Katiechainsaw (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG for the quality criteria of sources to provide. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G7 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzy Jazz[edit]

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

BLP PROD removed due to addition of Elon Trap, however, that article is extremely brief and not WP:SIGCOV. I found no decent sources in my own searches. No evidence of WP:NMUSICIAN either (the article claims that he is signed to Warner Music Group but I can't find evidence of this). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wapanucka, Oklahoma. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Button Springs, Oklahoma[edit]

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

The fact that little is known about it probably means it doesn't merit an article. Fails WP:NCITY, since it wasn't notable historically. Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ Although I may be a little biased considering I created the page, I do think every village/town deserves to have a Wikipedia page, even if the town doesn’t exist anymore. The town is on Google Maps as well, so considering it was able to land a spot on Google Maps, it surely should have a Wikipedia page, right? Once again - I may be biased, I was the person who created the page, so don’t take my word as truth. I just wanted to say this. Thanks :D DannonCool (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from Ref. 2 (which is obviously not RS) the only mention I could find is this book: [27], and that only mentions the location in the caption to one photo (i.e. a passing mention). Clearly not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref 2 says it was renamed Wapanucka, Oklahoma, so I don't see why any history more reliably sourced than this can't be mentioned at that article. This is not a town, so any concept that all towns should have a page does not apply here, and Google Maps is not a basis for notability whatsoever (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington is on it...there's not humans making decisions to put names on there...) Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wapanucka, Oklahoma per WP:GEOLAND. It was the name of a town, which was later renamed Wapanucka, per reference #2 in the current article (unreliable) plus The Daily Ardmoreite (Ardmore, Oklahoma) 20 Mar 1947, page 11, "...Mr. Taylor came from Cleveland, Tenn., April 20, 1879, to Button Springs, later called Wapanucka." and further, The Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City) 29 Jan 1961, page 11 of the Oklahoma's Orbit Section, Page 71 on newspapers.com, "...Residents say Wapanucka is an Indian name for Button Springs, which the present town was called until the late 1800's.". Add to this the fact that the current article lists the location of the town as "0.6 miles south of Wapanucka". It's the same place. Redirect instead of merge because I don't think there's much to save in the existing article at this point. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait that makes so much sense! May you please change my response from Keep to Redirect. Thanks :D DannonCool (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Doing the change. Alpha3031 (t • c)[reply]
Redirect to Wapanucka, Oklahoma, which Button Springs was renamed to per the sources stated by RecycledPixels; they are effectively the same place. Also fine with a merger if someone thinks that any information is relevant. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wapanucka, Oklahoma per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this could be helpful.

Redirect, per above discussion.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Television Channel[edit]

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

Unable to find any secondary references for this defunct television network, which fails to meet WP:GNG as a result. Let'srun (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Network's entire purpose was as non-notable filler while the owner waited for someone to buy a channel slot. I would weakly support a redirect, but I just can't see this really meriting an article. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's hard to imagine a small television network like this, distributed via stations that, for the most part, have questionable notability themselves (if even that), getting the requisite significant coverage to merit an article. (To be sure, I don't think non-notability can be automatically assumed by association, much as actual notability is never inherited; all that matters is any coverage of a given topic.) When the "sourcing" for the network's demise is its silence on social media and an error message on its live stream… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Danough[edit]

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

Currently doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC as he doesn't have individual notability outside the bands he played with. I didn't find sufficient sources through with a WP:BEFORE search to pass NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. Suonii180 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG criteria and is not notable, so should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cities in the United States by elevation. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest towns in Colorado[edit]

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

I redirected this to List of cities in the United States by elevation as a borderline A10 speedy: the first 80 entries on the list here, are also included in the target list in the top 100. Just adding 20 entries here to the bottom, by doing some WP:SYNTH from primary sources, hoping that none were missed, does not create a viable second article. Fram (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Colorado. Fram (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @Fram, Mdewman6, and Zzyzx11: This list is a viable article on its own merits and should never have been redirected (without a discussion) to the List of cities in the United States by elevation just because some of its links are included in a different format and order on that list. This is U.S. state-related list and an important part of the List of Colorado-related lists. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which explains why we need two nearly identical lists. Every reader who is interested in the highest towns in Colorado gets a very good picture of it at the target list, and as editors we avoid the duplicate maintenance or risk of contradictory lists (e.g. why do they have a different order?). Fram (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists have different numerical rankings because multiple states are included in the national list. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail

Note: Both this list and the completely updated List of cities in the United States by elevation were populated from a master list in the user namespace of towns in the United States above 7,600 feet (2,316 m). That master list included 147 towns: 5 in Arizona, 4 in California, 108 in Colorado, 16 in New Mexico, 7 in Utah, and 7 in Wyoming. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 14:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thank Buaidh for updating List of cities in the United States by elevation, so this article is no longer necessary. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this state-related list no longer necessary? Are any state-related lists necessary? Why should we not delete the List of cities in the United States by elevation (if most are in Colorado) and keep this one? Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? The national list has more information so there is need for any state-specific list. The fact that this one has different numerical rankings has no bearing: it's trivial for anyone to just count that 10th-ranked Breckenridge would be 9th when the Utah city is excluded; we shouldn't duplicate information just so we can say it with different numberings. Reywas92^Talk 03:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cities in the United States by elevation (or wherever that discussion ends up) Table is easily sorted by state and this is all but redundant, and the lede notes how many Coloradan communities are in the top 100. I would also suggest locking this as a redirect for another obvious reason. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf: A cannabis reference? I'm 75, a vegetarian, and obviously not a user. Yours confusedly, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the List of cities in the United States by elevation redirect to this list since this list seems to be the more relevant. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've never had to deal with List of burn centers during the peak of that phrase as an insult. Trust me, vandals find a way. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but I have been shot at multiple times. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 00:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, both content and context are suitably provided at the redirect target.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per all above and WP:ATD. This list is an unnecessary WP:CFORK.4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 2 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 CSI: NY#Danny Messer. Star Mississippi 12:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Messer[edit]

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: NY#Danny Messer. Spinixster (chat!) 10:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not seeing anything to merge given the abysmall zero reference state of this article - this is just a very lenghty plot summary, pure unadelturated WP:FANCRUFT. Ping me if sources on reception or scholarly analysis of this character are found and I'll reconsider my vote but even then I'd probably say redirect it and don't restore until a reception/analysis section is created first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Criminal Minds characters#Emily Prentiss. History remains should folks decide to merge Star Mississippi 12:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prentiss[edit]

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Emily Prentiss. Spinixster (chat!) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not seeing much to merge - this is just a very lenghty plot summary. Ping me if sources on reception or scholarly analysis of this character are found and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unsourced. Would consider a merge, but I definitely don't see enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Law & Order characters. Content that needs to be merged to the human being with the same name can be done with the history remaining under the redirect Star Mississippi 12:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schiff (Law & Order)[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters from the show, and probably merge the part about his real life namesake (Adam Schiff) there if it is not present there already. Not enough WP:GNG for a stand-alone article, outside this minor namesake trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment finding SIGCOV of the character is difficult because of the ~~namesake~~ real-life politician of the same name. Here's what I got off the top: [28] [29] The Accusers: Law, Justice and the Image of Prosecutors in Hollywood These are Their Stories: How the Portrayal of Capital Punishment on Law & (and) Order can Help Abolitionists Argue against the Death Penalty Google Scholar seems to have quite a lot, but it's hard to tell which pieces are about Schiff specifically and which are about the show from just abstracts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sources...
- The first source does mention Schiff, but the part that mentions it is more about McCoy. It describes Schiff as an obstacle for McCoy.
- The second source seems to be trivia about who the character was based on.
- The third source is similar to the first, but it's more about Ben Stone.
- The fourth source is a simple namedrop.
Spinixster (chat!) 03:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Piotrus. Any expansion can take place at the target article, if at all. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator is sock and only other comment is a keep (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 00:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Zedong Flag[edit]

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

Similar to Red Song Society, the website is largely a product of a very minor media company in China and most of its content is blog-style. Everyone can publish their articles (without royalties) on the website and thus the website is subject to pervasive conspiracy theories and yellow journalism. Most importantly, the article lacks sufficient sources to support its independent notability. NZCAJD2 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and China. NZCAJD2 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least three sources sufficient to meet SIGCOV: [30][31][32]. As with Red Song Society, for which identical criticisms were offered, attacks on the article subject are misplaced at an AfD nomination. Oblivy (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator is sock and only other comment is a keep (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 00:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Song Society[edit]

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

The website is largely a product of a very minor media company in China and most of its contents are blog-style. Everyone can publish their articles (without royalties) on the website and thus the website is subject to pervasive conspiracy theories and yellow journalism. Most importantly, the article lacks sufficient sources to support its independent notability. NZCAJD2 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. NZCAJD2 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is substantive treatment of the website in the Economist and Yingjie/Garrick discusses the Hong Zhenkuai case at length including discussion of the role of Red Song Society (see esp. page 339-40). It also receives mentions in scholarly work talking about neo-maoism. I added a VOA article about the Visual China controversy. Aside from sourcing, the other reasons given in the nomination (blog style, conspiracy theories, yellow journalism) are not valid deletion rationales and has some features of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Websites can be notable without being paragons of virtue or good editorial practice. Oblivy (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing Youth (China)[edit]

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

Created by a sock of 维基中二群体代表. The current entry is a bad case of "Wikipedia:WORDISSUBJECT", and is actually about the leftist youth movement in contemporary China, not the leftist youth as the term that has been used since the May Fourth Movement. In addition, I've never seen a likewise entry in Wikipedia. I know there are entries like the "American Left" and the Wandervogel, but I've never seen "Left-wing Youth (USA)". From this I suggest deleting, renaming or giving it a restart. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Politics. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You first need to proof that "someone am a sock of someone", otherwise it is an ungrounded claim.

Regarding the article itself, I don't see any problem here. "Left-wing Youth (USA)" does not exist because there is no such a distinct youth community associated with certain figures and events in the USA. If there is (I don't think so), surely it could be created as well. NZCAJD2 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "a sock of" is quite Wikipedia:DUCK, as you have done twice of evading. I wouldn't mind pinging a few admins here to confirm this. @Sotiale and Blablubbs:

I don't know how the references you cite demonstrate that it's a "distinct group associated with certain people and events"; technically, only about 4 or 5 sources speak specifically to the composition of the student left, while most of the rest of the literature treats it as a general term. Therefore, a bit of Wikipedia:Recentism. What you say about the US not having one is also problematic ([33]). ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 08:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me inform other potential participants of the AfD discussion. The user initiated AfD of the article's Chinese version, which seems doomed to fail. So now he wants it to be deleted in English wikipedia. But the English one is exactly translated from there.

I would advice you to focus on the content of the article instaed of referring to other cases, being in the USA or elsewhere. The Subject of the article is very clear: a gounp of college students born in the 1990s, mostly related the Jasic Incident and Peking University Marxist Society. It is not about "left-wing youth" during the 1920s. If you want to create an article for the latter (I doubt whether there are enough sources), you can do it. NZCAJD2 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NZCAJD2 has been verified and blocked globally. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added WP:G5 speedy deletion request to the article as it's created by sock with no substantive edits afterwards. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Al-Rahba. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deyr ü Rahba[edit]

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

The article includes a single source, which does not verify the content and was evidently misrepresented. I found the archived link to the original source, and here "Deyr u Rahba" is only mentioned as an administrative division of the Diyarbekir Eyalet in a table on page 19 under the column "Sancaqs that are not also Kurdish chiefdoms". And there is no mention of "an Abbasid province of Diyar Bakr". The text clearly refers to the Ottoman times. While this only shows that the article should be rewritten, and the topic itself did exist, the article was basically forgotten after its creation in 2017; it may also require a name change to better fit the English language. The content isn't much, so a deletion would be more valuable, unless someone magically decides to expand and rename the article. It is also worth noting that the Ottoman province is mentioned in other articles such as Al-Rahba#Ottoman era, so Wikipedia won't lose any well-sourced information. Aintabli (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. Aintabli (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Diyarbakır Province~~ Al-Rahba (see below response from Pilaz for reason for that target) - Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant WP:RS, and there is really nothing to merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in, it was not actually located in the modern-day Diyarbakır province of Turkey. It is today a part of Syria. It should either redirect to Al-Rahba, Diyarbekir Eyalet, or Rakka Eyalet. Honestly, the first would be much more appropriate, since the borders of administrative divisions often changed. First, it was a part of Diyarbekir, then Raqqa, and perhaps another eyalet/vilayet in later years of the Ottomans. Al-Rahba, on the other hand, appears to have served as the center of the Deyr-Rahbe per Al-Rahba#Ottoman era, not to mention the name similarity. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I was misled by the stub message that specified '...a location in Diyarbakır Province, Turkey...' I have scratched that target from my !vote and will update when a redir target is agreed by people who know better than I. Thanks and Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly needs more input. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al-Rahba as suggested by the nominator. In its current state, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage. As evidenced by the nom, the article in its current state is not tenable since it is based on an erroneous interpretation, and there is nothing to merge, so redirecting seems the way to go. The target redirect seems to fit since this subdivision seemed to be centered around Al-Rahba. Last1in, would this redirect work for you? Pilaz (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly. I don't know the area or its history well enough to have a good opinion, so I was hoping someone like you would make a good suggestion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_ Feel free to have discussions on Redirecting individual stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andheri West metro station[edit]

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

Fails GNG just like this and this. The article doesn't provide any useful information apart from the ones duplicated in every Mumbai Metro station article. Every article I listed below is identical if they belong to the same metro line(except the title), no individual SIGCOV can be found.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their similarity:

Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect any that cannot be expanded to either Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations or List of Namma Metro stations (I have a very slight preference for the former but am happy with either target). While there appears to be little information available at the moment (I've only looked at a couple) they are all highly plausible search terms and so should redirect to the information we do have in one of the aforementioned articles until such time as they can be expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf and @Timothytyy,

The metro stations "Benniganahalli" and "Challeghatta" are getting ready and are set to become operational in the third week of September. I request you to consider "undeletion" only for those 2 wikipages. More information are to be added when nearing the operational dates. Hope to see some good response from your side. Thank You, Sameer Kumar. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guarantee that individual SIGCOV will be provided to those two stations? Because even operational stations don't have individual coverage according to my research. As every article contains similar information, it would be a nice choice to add the information to the metro line's article. That would be more organized while it does pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee that individual SIGVOC will be provided. Sorry for the late response since I just checked your reply to my blog. Pls give me 2 weeks time and I'll get the required information. Sameer2905 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf and @Timothytyy,

I hope the SIGCOV provided is useful for those stations. Please let me know if any changes to be made and hoping to get the response from your side. Thank you. Sameer2905 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided do not provide individual SIGCOV. For example, the sources you provided in Benniganahalli metro station are just coverage about the line, not the station. Check Cockfosters tube station for an idea about individual SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can prove the GNG and SIGCOV for some of the articles from Pune Metro listed in here. Other pages can be reinstated to their previous redirects which existed before expanding them. I'll notify here once I'm done with the updates. Just one question - after redirecting the pages, would it be possible to restore the expanded versions in the future when SIGCOV is available? Let me know about it DesiBoy101 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course restoring is possible, but remember SIGCOV requires independent, detailed coverage from non-subject-affiliated reliable sources. Timothytyy (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've added my comments in the list above after updating the articles from Pune Metro. Request you to take a look and take the suggested action accordingly. Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Timothytyy, pinging for your attention. It would be nice if Pune Metro articles are delisted from this AfD soon as per suggestions above. DesiBoy101 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am the nominator so I cannot close the discussion. Also for the expansions some articles are still failing GNG, e.g. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan. The sources you added still doesn't provide significant coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If editors want these article redirected, you need to list each article and its redirect target article. The closer can't guess what you are thinking. Without supplying specific target articles for each article listed, this likely will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion, I propose the following:
- Redirect Benniganahalli metro station, Challaghatta metro station to Purple Line (Namma Metro)
- Redirect Bopodi metro station, Dapodi metro station to Purple Line (Pune Metro)
- Redirect Lower Malad metro station, Lower Oshiwara metro station, Malad West metro station, Oshiwara metro station and Valnai metro station to Line 2 (Mumbai Metro)
- Redirect Mangalwar Peth metro station, Ruby Hall Clinic metro station to Aqua Line (Pune Metro)
- Keep PMC Bhavan metro station and Shivaji Nagar metro station (Pune)
- Need consensus on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan metro station and Deccan Gymkhana metro station about whether source 3 contributes to GNG
- Merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station

Any objections? Timothytyy (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As evident from Timothy's latest comments, each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion. Rather than a bulk nomination, perhaps nominate one station where you believe that you might have a case? gidonb (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Tube stations in other parts of the world have articles on them (e.g. Oxford Circus tube station), so I do not see why Indian tube stations are automatically non-notable. What does not help are editors who think that "only now counts" and delete citations to events like stations opening, etc. Over time it will be possible for articles on Indian tube stations to grow. Destroying the "seed corn" articles prevents this from happening.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Information available about the stations will continue to grow as the time progresses and thus help in article improvement. - DesiBoy101 (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Invalid comment. You cannot assume notability of one article by comparing it with other articles; after all, Tube stations have a long history and there is sufficient SIGCOV; however, no individual coverage is provided for Indian metro stations, at least according to my research. @Gidonb, as you can see, most articles can be redirected, only some need further consensus and some have been improved, so I don't see why "each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion". To me they are all very similar (except the two articles which have been expanded after my nomination). The merge is equivalent to a redirection. The difference in redirection target doesn't mean that there should be separate discussions, as all targets are similar in nature. Timothytyy (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we can go out with a broad brush and claim that metro stations in different cities and even states resemble each other, just because all are in India. Each station would need to be discussed on its own merrits (i.e. the existence of sources per WP:NEXIST, NOT the current state of sourcing) and I will warn upfront that I am going to be lenient with sources as we have a MAJOR problem with equity in coverage between developed and developing nations, alongside a real problem with sources in developing nations. That said, I would like to be constructive. YOUR BEST CASE here is to merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station. I'm happy to get behind that! gidonb (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, the articles about Chinese stations created by me also got redirected because few Chinese sources are defined as reliable (e.g. WeChat and Sina are the major news sources, but unfortunately they aren't reliable). Frustrations aside, I still need to uphold the guidelines. The articles fail GNG; you cannot disprove that (unless you can provide SIGCOV, even local sources are ok, in that case welcome). You mentioned NEXIST; however, I cannot find any independent reliable coverage of the stations. WP:TRAINSTATION, an SNG, has long been deprecated. Also, I don't see any harm of removing articles with no extra information; the articles I nominated are almost identical, and readers cannot get any useful information out of it other than a few specific parameters which may not interest most readers, not backed up by RS, and can be shown in a list of stations. After all, Wikipedia strives for quality, not quantity. Timothytyy (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to these policies, well before yet another passionate response ;-) If you feel that there is a strong case somewhere hidden among all these metro stations in different cities and states, you could go ahead and nominate that station. gidonb (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Not only is this far too many articles for a batch AfD, but major metro stations of a major metropolitan city are inherently notable. It is impossible for there not to be extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and other records on such projects. As mentioned above we have articles on stations of every other major city. I honestly doubt anyone would even think of AfDing any of the similar London Underground, Berlin U-Bahn or Paris Metro stations. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles exist not because of inherited notability but because of coverage. If you cannot provide SIGCOV about those stations, they fail GNG and I see no reason to keep them. Timothytyy (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothytyy, you have had your say. There is no need for you to sandwich everybody else's comment with an explanation of why you disagree with them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Do you think your stance is supported by relevant guidelines? You don't seem to understand how notability works. No users supporting keeping provided a valid criterion; you two's comments are just nice examples of OTHERSTUFF votes. Timothytyy (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are divided between Redirection and Keeping articles and there is an underlying critique from some editors of such a large bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's apropos that a discussion about metro stations may end in a trainwreck. In lieu of source hunting or verifying, which is hard in such cases, I'm going to suggest Keep all because of
1. Multiple have notability established at this point.
2. One editor was !voting redirect in hopes of quickly restoring several that may have SIGCOV.
3. One editor is concerned about WP:NOTTEMPORARY and removal of references.
4. Other implicity trainwreck !votes.
5. Good faith nominator got pinged back a couple times, and is now accidentally bludgeoning the discussion, unfortunately making it even harder to follow for every new editor to arrive here, meaning I don't think the situation is going to improve at this point.

—siro χ o 05:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per all keep votes above. These should not be bundled into a single nomination but judged on individual merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as a bad bundle, with no prejudice to re-AfDing in a more individual fashion. Bundling stations from different lines and especially different cities is highly likely to not succeed. AfDs that bundle stations only from one line in my opinion will product the most significant results. Jumpytoo Talk 04:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Hypervenom[edit]

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. After removing unreliable sources, there are three sources left (even then I'm not sure about them). One source details Nike giving the product to a famous athlete, another source details a product release and the last details the product being discontinued. This a far shot from broad in-depth coverage of the product. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS that would establish WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic. Giant Snowman 10:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD, but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Becca (decedent)[edit]

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

Article is cited entirely to primary sources and is therefore WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PSTS, and WP:Verifiability. Even if sources are located to pass GNG; this is a strong candidate for WP:TNT given the OR issues involving a sensitive topic. 4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don’t feel it is necessary to delete this page especially as it’s about such a mysterious and major case of an unidentified decedent. Judging from the reasons you have given, it sounds like changing sources from ones that are primary to ones that are NOT primary would fix the issue. Ellissten (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellissten Assuming secondary sources exist, the material would have to be completely rewritten which is why WP:TNT applies. Given the sensitive nature of this topic and out of respect for the person who died, I don't see how we can allow an article built entirely from original research to remain in main space. We aren't allowed to interpret primary sources like law enforcement websites on wikipedia per policy at WP:No original research and WP:NCRIME. That said, at AFD we require evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources to be produced in order to keep an article under WP:GNG policy. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments which speculate that sources exist without producing them is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sad story, but there doesn't appear to be much written about her. The one CBS source is fine, but it's not enough to build a wiki article. I don't see much of anything else in a Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete No indication of being notable, as not indication of significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gallanosa family[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2010. No reliable source hits on Google, GNews, GBooks and GNews Archives --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Honestly, reading the article, I couldn't find any reason in favor of its notability. Also couldn't find any good sources for this. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of the family being notable. This was created by an SPA so this could be a case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY from a member of the family. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yannik Pisanne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. I cannot find this professor through internet search. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name appears to be misspelled: sources give it as "Yannick", not "Yannik". That could explain the difficulty finding sources. In case this ends up being kept, this should be fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article supplied me with a source here. Does it constitute as RS and sigcov? An extra set of eyes would be helpful. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this source alone does not amount to WP:NACADEMIC. I am sharing my communications with the creator of the article, @Notrecercle, on the deletion of this article. See User talk:Notrecercle#Deletion discussion about Yannik Pisanne. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source describes him as a secondary school teacher and a writer of historical novels. That is definitely not what WP:ACADEMIC is for and he does not pass. He should also not be described as a "professor", as that word means something different and more specific in English than it does in French. To me it seems the only hope of notability would be to find enough published reviews of his books to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:BASIC. I couldn't find any coverage beyond the already-mentioned RS Ouest France, which is likely also problematic on independence grounds per WP:INTERVIEW. Actualitté only offers a brief passage from the book, but does not constitute a review. Pilaz (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beond[edit]

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

Beond

Airline that is about to begin operations, and does not pass corporate notability, likely because it is too soon. The sources include interviews with corporate officers, and what appear to be reprints of corporate handouts.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Thetravel.com	Information page about new airline - Reads like corporate handout	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Simpleflying.com	Information page about the airline - Reads like corporate handout	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	gulfnews.com	Interview with CEO	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	Flybeond.com	About Us page on web site	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
5	www.smh.com.au	Interview with commercial operations officer	No	Yes	Yes	No

There is also a draft. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be improved when the airline begins operations and has independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Maldives. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft until they start operation, seems TOOSOON. Says they're operational in September 2023, so a few weeks from now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes the WP:ORGCRITE by virtue of following sources:

The subject has been published on CNN
The subuject has closed US$17M seed funding which was published on FINSMES Yahoo Finance
And there are multiple other sources which can be used to prove its notability. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurathDubai (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per ATD and per TOOOSOON. ~~Delete~~ none of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The CNN source is based entirely on PR and interviews with execs and has no "Independent Content" sufficient to meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH requirements (regardless of what has been said below). Announcements about closing seed funding are also run-of-the-mill and in any case are also PR (says it clearly on the Yahoo link), fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This airline has not yet proven itself as noteworthy. Im open for recreating the page if they gather further independent attention, though. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I expected to !vote "draftify" or "delete" based on my experience that startup airlines still not flying are usually "TOOSOON" and seldom notable. (Also, the nominator, Robert McClenon, is almost always right about stuff.) In this case, the CNN article is legit and, while positive, it's independent; the writer discusses other airlines, etc. I can't ignore it. On the other hand, it takes more than $17 million to get jets in the air. (Perhaps they've raised more since then?) So my "keep" is a "very weak, skeptical keep" based on a technicality and I'm OK if this article is draftified for now (unless the existing draft is better).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the most part, the CNN piece is not "independent" because *all* of the information *about* the company is regurgitated from company sources. The last section contains comments/opinions from two industry experts (great, Independent Content) but (in my opinion) is nether "significant coverage" or "substantial coverage". It is also a requirement for "multiple sources" - what other sources in your opinion meets NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the CNN piece, because to me it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH: ~250 words of analysis on the company's business decisions and prospects. Can you say more about why you don't think this is significant coverage? Suriname0 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where precisely int the ~250 "words of analysis" can you see analysis about the company's business decisions and prospects assuming you're referring to the last section "A Niche Market". What precisely is contained in that section which you would classify as "in-depth" analysis *about* the *company*? Rob Morris spends most of his time talking about the route, not the airline, and doesn't make any mention that his comments are in relation to the airline. Mike Stengel's analysis is slightly better but boils down to only two sentences which we can see is directly related to the company (start at "By being tied to...."). This falls well short of being sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage exists in the USA publications: [34], [35], [36]; Hong Kong publication: [37]; UAE publications: [38], [39], [40]; Maldives publications: [41], [42], [43]. Meets WP:GNG and keep per WP:HEY. 2605:59C8:259B:1D00:FC65:574:C94F:8AD0 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Beond has done a good job getting some earned media coverage recently.

I have some operational questions. Has Beond taken physical possession of their planes yet? Do they have a firm start date for flying? Have they started selling tickets? Are there any reliable sources addressing these issues?

Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: “earned media” as I understand it is a term of art. Another way to put it is free publicity through news reporting. It doesn’t necessarily mean the news articles are churnalism on the one hand or reliable on the other. You hear this phrase a lot during political races.

When I used this phrase above, I meant it in this neutral sense.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are applying NCORP criteria which apply since this is a company. Here's an analysis on the sources:

There are a number of CNN articles, largely all the same. The one you've referenced has been discussed above but essentially, the content about the company is sourced from the company (pics have been provded by the company for example) and an exec interview (fails ORGIND) and the two industry expert comments fall well short of what we require, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The The Clayton County Register article is regurgitated PR and contains nothing new from the information published in lots of other articles which at least quote the CEO (e.g. the CNN article). Fails ORGIND.
The Times and Democrat relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs and acknowledges the information was sources from the CNN article - even to the point of copying the sub-headlines. Fails ORGIND.
SCMP article (archived here) is similar to the CNN article in that all of the information about the company has been provided by the company/execs (fails ORGIND) except for some comments from industry experts which fall well short of being substantial or significant or in-depth (fails CORPDEPTH).
The National News is regurgitated PR, borrows contents from Bloomberg and fails ORGIND
Maldives Voice article is totally based on PR and an event to open their offices. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Maldives Business Times is PR, fails ORGIND
Travel Weekly is PR, fails ORGIND
Gulf News relies totally on comments/information from the company/execs. Fails ORGIND.
Arab News is PR. Fails ORGIND

Sure, the company is getting mentioned - same as any other company being launched, but it is all driven by PR and interviews. There are some industry comments which are Independent but these fall well short of meeting CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As described by A. B., this is earned media. Doubting a reliable source without any evidence and labeling it as PR gives the impression that you're searching for excuses to reject references. Arab News, Gulf News, The National, The Times and Democrat, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, all are in-depth and very reliable. If you doubt the reliability of a source, please initiate a discussion about that source on WP:RSN. Thank you. 98.97.56.73 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon IP, just FYI but "earned media" invariably relied entirely on information/interviews provided by the company/execs, often generated by marketing activity, and not only fails ORGIND but is precisely the reason for the existence of NCORP guidelines to assist editors in assessing media for the purposes of establishing notability. It has nothing to do with a source being reliable and everything to do with the content being independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. I tried to dig a bit deeper. Answers given below:

Start date is defined: Nov. 9, 2023. Source: [44]
Yes, they have a A319 plane in possession. Source: [45]
Yes they have started taking bookings on their website. Try to buy it on their website

2605:59C8:4FE:F900:49DA:E762:4F72:CA69 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify since it's likely TOOSOON. I agree on sources right now, the best source seems to be the CNN article above. But it has several hundred words attributed either to a founder or the company itself, and a lot of the other coverage is about competitors, predecessors, and the broad industry, so I don't think it can qualify for CORPDEPTH. —siro χ o 01:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This should be a relatively easy call, it appears by all signs to be an active and operational international airline serving multiple countries. I believe the CNN and SMH pieces combine to be sufficient evidence SIRS is met and the vote is decidable on that basis alone. However in addition out of curiosity I went to the IATA database to see if they’re registered with an international call sign, and they are (it is B4) and I went to the airline website went to book a flight for November and was given a price and itinerary and flight number and prompted to enter passenger information and a credit card to complete the booking. Sure looks like an actual airline. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon IP. Just FYI, SIRS explicitly doesn't allow for sources to be combined. Also, no, it is neither active nor operational as an airline. Yes, they're registered but they haven't flown yet. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIRS actually requires sources to be combined in order to meet the criteria of having multiple sources rather than just one. Which was the point of that comment. The amount of employees required to get to the point of having those registrations, gates reserved at multiple major airports and so on requires active operations by any definitions of those two words. 157.130.50.206 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Anon IP. Did you even read SIRS? The very first line says Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. In other words, the opposite of your take on SIRS. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Each of them, separately and independently of each other, meet SIRS. They’re both significant sources of coverage and independent.

The fact that there are more than one of them each of which, alone, meet the criteria creates notability.

That’s because having one source that meets SIRS is not enough and as such to meet SIRS, generally, you need to combine them into the analysis to satisfy the requirement of multiple sources.

My wording could have been better but it’s not really that complicated to follow. Since everyone is having trouble here’s a recap.

1. CNN meets SIRS

2. SMH meets SIRS

3. The combination of 1 and 2 satisfies notability and the SIRS insistence on multiple sources not just one.

Got it? Also you never know who’s a dumbass anon and who’s just an editor who just forgot to log in before commenting and now has to stay anon to avoid leaking personal information. 98.116.200.240 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is the flag carrier airline of Maldives [46]. It is a discriminatory behavior to apply US-coverage standards on a small country like Maldives, where media standards are different, and also considering the fact that multiple countries' publications have already covered it in-depth enough. 159.196.171.101 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or delete). I'm inclined to agree with HighKing's analysis here on the CNN article. Limited to the 250 words of the independent content, I fail to see how it addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail to the point where we could extract content usable in an article, and the same said for the SCMP article. The SMH article lacks such content entirely. Outside the sources already analysed, the best I could find were from AVGeekery AirGuide and The Economist but they were worse than the SMH article so did not make it in to the best three. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 16 September 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary redirect to List of airlines of the Maldives or draftify as WP:ATD and to preserve history until the airline begins operations. Once that happens we can restore the content. S5A-0043^Talk 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify, per WP:TOOSOON Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but an additional relist is necessary. I closed this AFD discussion as "Draftify" only to find there is already a Draft version of this article at Draft:Beond. Please voice your opinion on whether or not that draft should be deleted in favor of this copy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the draft in favor of this copy. That draft was created by a likely SPA blocked for a promotional username, and the draft is tagged accordingly. The submission was also intiially declined even before the creation of this article. This article seems to have been created by an editor with a more general interest in commercial aviation. —siro χ o 07:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move this copy to Drafts I'd say too HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move current article (mainspace one) to draft, but I suggest before that whatever the draft has that doesn't sound promotional be copied into the mainspace article (for example the history section in the draft where the former roles of the founders are more elaborated compared to the mainspace article). S5A-0043^Talk 07:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps when this building is completed, it will receive adequate significant coverage and this deletion decision can be revisited. But today the consensus is deletion.

This article can be restored to Draft space if editors want to continue to work on it. But it shouldn't be moved back to main space without passing AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

NN building. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, India, and West Bengal. UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Sandip 17:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul[reply]

@Mr.sandippaul: Please could you tell us why you think that the article should be kept.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reasons not to delete this page. All the information given on this page is true. I travelled here. So as per my experience, I can say that the information described in Wikipedia is the same as in real life. Architecture, geographic location, etc. are all properly mentioned here. So I think, for now, there is no need to delete this page. This article can be improved if needed, but deleting it would be a bad move. Sandip 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul[reply]

These are not legitimate reasons. Please educate yourself on what is required to support keeping an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not policy-compliant reasons, but they are his/her reasons.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete. @Reason No 1 Reason No 2 Reason No 3. Reason No 4. Reason No 5–Sandip (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul[reply]
A donation link in the first article does not make it useful. Could be seen as promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it will really be the largest religious building in the world (and even if not, it is clearly one of the largest) then it is obviously notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't have sourcing to back that up, this is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBUILD. Sources in the article and above are not independent sources non-promo secondary sources. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Multiple news sources are saying this is notable. There is no need to delete.–Iamshampa (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)~~ — Iamshampa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
"ISKCON aims to build world's largest temple in Bengal". Hindustan Times. 26 February 2013. Retrieved 28 January 2020.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ No
"ISKCON's Mayapur in West Bengal temple to be world's biggest". Telangana Today. 13 October 2019. Archived from the original on 6 December 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2020.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	? Dead link, article not archived	✘ No
King, Anna S. (2015). "Vedic science, modern science and reason". In Keul, István (ed.). Asian Religions, Technology and Science. Routledge. p. 55. ISBN 9781317674481.	author is a reader in theology at the University of Winchester		~ Pages 55-56 talk about the building	~ Partial
Valpey, Kenneth R. (2019). Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics. Springer Nature. pp. 214–218. ISBN 9783030284084.			~ Pages 214-218 are really about cow care. The mention of the building is only slightly more than in passing	~ Partial
Chowdhury, Abhijit (27 August 2022). "হার মানবে তাজমহল, ভ্যাটিকান! মায়াপুরে ইসকন মন্দিরের এক এক তলায় ঠাঁই হবে কত জনের?" [ISKCON Temple Mayapur Details: Lose Taj Mahal, Vatican! How many people will live on one floor of the ISKCON temple in Mayapur?]. Hindustan Times - Bangla (in Bengali). Retrieved 28 August 2022.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ No
"বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম মন্দির বাংলায়, ১০ অজানা কথার সন্ধান" [World's largest temple: World's largest temple in Bengali, search for 10 unknown words]. Zee News (in Bengali). 27 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ No
Kar, Sharmita (27 August 2022). Srinivasan, Chandrashekar (ed.). "Vedic Planetarium, 'world's largest temple', to open in Bengal". Hindustan Times.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ No
Dey, Sreyashi (26 August 2022). "World's largest religious monument will soon be in India—with the help of Ford heir". ThePrint. Retrieved 28 August 2022.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ No
Mukhopadhyay, Sounak (27 August 2022). "World's largest religious monument to open in West Bengal, check details". Mint. Retrieved 28 August 2022.	Based on a press release	Based on a press release	~	✘ 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)).

It is arguable that newspaper articles based on ISKCON press releases might be to some extent independent and reliable because journalists and fact checkers probably applied limited fact checking and the newspapers would have ignored the press releases if ISKCON had not been notable. Note that five of the newspaper articles were evidently based on the same press release - so they are not independent of each other. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be independent of each other, just independent of the subject. In this case, it's a moot point, since press releases are not independent, and they were all based on the press release. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the table, BTW. Makes the discussion easier. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also offer thanks for the source eval. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source analysis. could not find any better sources myself. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the source table shown, this does not meet notability for buildings. It is likely not old enough to qualify for historical building status, so it would fall under GNG guidelines. Beyond confirmation of existing, I don't see much we can use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Outlook, HT, ET, Times of India all covered about its opening. BS covered it as early as 2014. Tripadvisor, Government of West Benegal treats it as a tourist place. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly - its opening is always in the future; the newspaper articles said covered its opening were written in 2022 and said it would open in 2023; but earlier articles gave earlier opening dates; I think they were written in response to press releases. Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir's website currently says that it will open in 429 days and 14 hours - i.e. 1 December 2024. But they are still trying to raise funds to pay building costs, so don't hold your breath.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see a consensus among participating editors that this article should be Kept and that sources provide SIGCOV. Additionally, aside from the nominator, I see no support for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goober Pyle[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. Note that the character's name is Goober Pyle, not Gomer Pyle, so please decide your vote on the notability of Goober only. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This character has its own identity aside from the actor and the Andy Griffth show, having featured on at least three major series, Andy Griffith, Mayberry RFD, and Hee Haw. I added a few citations. There's almost no cross-over with Gomer Pyle. Lindsey co-wrote an autobiography called Goober in a Nutshell (out of print, available on archive.org, and not a vanity publication - Worldcat lists 93 current library holdings), and the character was the main focus of Lindsey's LA Times obituary.
Oblivy (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not prove the character's notability. Even if the character appeared in several other series, that does not mean that they are notable. The autobiography isn't focused on the character but the actor (the description says Lindsey, who spent four years playing the lovable lunkhead mechanic on The Andy Griffith Show, reveals what it was like to be part of one of the most popular shows in TV history.) and the character being heavily mentioned in Lindsey's obituary does not mean that the character is notable (I took a look at the obituary, the character was not the main focus, because it's an obituary, not a character article, the character was only briefly mentioned.) More sources would be needed per WP:N. Spinixster (chat!) 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again at the obituary.[47] I counted 14 paragraphs (admittedly some quite short) talking about the Goober character. Perhaps we're not looking at the same article? Oblivy (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I find it to be WP:CRUFT because it describe what he does on the show, not really some kind of reception to establish notability. Spinixster (chat!) 07:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for sure. AlexBogue89 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This counts as WP:JV, please express why you think the article should be kept. Spinixster (chat!) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG with many sources (eg, quickly [48][49][50][51][52]) providing SIGCOV analyzing the character, the character in relation to the real world, the characters impact on multiple shows, the characters impact on television, etc. The sources I linked above don't represent an exhaustive search of any db or search engine, just a few promising clicks in a few. Also, don't forget the several decades of dead tree coverage this character received as well. —siroχo 03:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A breakdown of the sources can be found below.
- The first source has a chapter focusing on Gomer, Goober, and Howard that can be used. I don't know how useful it really is because it seems to mostly be a summary of the character's plotlines, which usually doesn't prove notability. The rest of the mentions seem to be passing.
- The second source seems more focused on the Andy Griffith Museum, it briefly talks about the arrival of Goober's suit.
- The third source only briefly mentions Goober as Gomer's cousin.
- The fourth source is similar to the first: mostly a summary of the character's plotlines.
- The fifth source is also similar to the first, although it seems to be more about the actor.
Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. George Lindsey's obituaries pretty much all feature his best-known role in the title: "George Lindsey, TV’s Goober Pyle, Dies at 83" (The New York Times no less), "‘Goober Pyle’ actor George Lindsey dies" (CNN), "George Lindsey, Known as Goober Pyle, Dies" (AP, via The Hollywood Reporter). In the obituaries, the character is indeed the main focus (let's face it, Lindsey isn't really known for anything else). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an actor is primarily known for playing a character does not mean that the character is notable enough for an individual article. I've already said what I said above about the obituaries. Spinixster (chat!) 06:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that major news outlets all highlight this character in their obits is an extremely strong sign of notability. In fact, Lindsey's notability itself depends solely on having played Goober. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really mean that the character is notable, though? Many actors are best known for playing one single character, but notability isn't inherited. More sources would be needed to prove the character's notability and not some WP:CRUFT. Spinixster (chat!) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reason I stated for Gomer Pyle: too recognizable Scratchu90 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said at Gomer Pyle, this is WP:JN, and you will need to explain further why and give proof that he's notable. Spinixster (chat!) 03:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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