< September 27	September 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Bong-chil[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT due to a lack of secondary coverage User:Let'srun 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in the article. My searches didn't find any either, which is not surprising for an athlete from the hermit kingdom. Also, he's not listed on the roster of North Korean players at 1966 FIFA World Cup Group 4. Cbl62 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything more than brief mentions. Happy to reconsider if substantial coverage is found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 5 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 Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpoint (Elseworlds)[edit]

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

Lack of sources, non-notable Industrial Insect (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Industrial Insect (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Elseworlds publications as it a notable Flash comic book story. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable how? It only has one citation and it's an interview. Industrial Insect (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information with merge being the best option at present. It's a story of some note even if it doesn't meet that GNG that I helped come up with all those years ago, which I mention just so I don't have to argue about what notability means. There's something here that needs to be conveyed to the reader and we need to work out how and where, but deletion isn't the answer to the problem here. Working out how and where to present the information is the problem, and deleting doesn't do that. As per the Editing policy, can I ask that we look at other options before deletion. Would love to merge, but don't have the time and deletion debate is now underway. Hiding T 11:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far the only argument so far for keeping is "it's notable" with no explanation of why. Flashpoint is already listed in the List of Elseworlds publications, so there is no reason to keep this article. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:LOSE and Wikipedia:JNN pretty much sums up the arguments made so far. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds - It does not appear to be a particularly notable storyline. The few sources that come up on it are basically just a few short "Did you know that there was another Flash story called "Flashpoint" before the actually notable Flashpoint (comics)?" type articles. And when the most notable thing about the comic is that its not the notable comic with the same title, that is probably a sign that it does not pass the WP:GNG. It it already listed and briefly described at List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds, so a Redirect there would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The only coverage I can find is of the "actually, there was another Flashpoint first" and then going on to talk about the one that was interesting instead. It's a footnote. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge Babysharkboss2 was here!! — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds, not notable enough for a separate article and it's already mentioned in that section. Suonii180 (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chang-ha[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Jong-u[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although he competed at the Olympics he did not win a medal and I couldn't find sources which passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O Hyok-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources I could find were player profiles which were all similar to each other and didn't go into enough detail to pass WP:GNG.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Kum-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Ju-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My response to all these nominations is that redirection is better than deletion. In this case, however, the Korean Wikipedia has an article about a different person born in 1910 with the same or a similar name at ko:최주성. The 1910 person's notability comes from a listing in a directory of pro-Japanese Koreans and from being a book author – or perhaps more than one person's biography has been smooshed together by VIAF. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Korea and Korean could build an English article from the corresponding Korean Wikipedia article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Korean footballers won't have coverage in South Korea sources, no matter how much we look. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the best I can find [1], it's a match report. One line mentions don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT due to a lack of secondary coverage. Trivial mentions in match reports don't contribute to notability. User:Let'srun 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Proper location for discussion about this redirect is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo[edit]

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

Delete old redirect page. Should not be a redirect for "San Michele Arcangelo, Anacapri". Article "Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo (Venezia, San Marco)" exists in italian wiki. Deleted redirect to avoid confusion in interlanguage links and in general. Gor1995 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wrong venue. The nominator should have begin this discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. This redirect is justified by the following example: "They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article." The same with the name of the church. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in favor of a change of venue per Eastmain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:24, 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!} 23:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counsman, California[edit]

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

Non-notable railway point. No sources found indicating this place is or ever was populated, thus fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried a search through the Wikipedia Library, no hits on newspaperarchive. I would have preferred to also search newspaper.com, but we don't have access to that as of now. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:43, 5 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 Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Toumazou[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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!} 23:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Strategies[edit]

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

No independent sources provided, no additional RS found in a WP:BEFORE aside from trivial coverage of the acquisition of the company. Clearly does not meet WP:NCORP. Tollens (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tollens (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except routine database entries and social media, and every single reference in the article is linked to the company. No independent secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:22, 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 redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesly Molina[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of competitive Counter-Strike maps[edit]

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

Pointless list with entries that violate WP:N and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I thought this article would be a neat idea to bundle together some coverage on maps that didn't have enough for their own articles. It was a neat idea, but unfortunately it died there immediately because there is no coverage in the first place besides trivial esports knowledge. Competitive Counter-Strike is well covered at articles such as Counter-Strike in esports already. Four maps in this series have their own articles already, these being Dust II, Inferno (Counter-Strike), Mirage (Counter-Strike), and Nuke (Counter-Strike). These are also the only four that I believe are able to hold their own coverage wise, and even then I think Nuke and Mirage are a bit flimsy. Everything else simply lacks the coverage for even a list entry, with Overpass and Train being prime examples of this. Everything this list can say or would be able to say is "this is a Counter-Strike map" with trivial esports knowledge that has no value to an encyclopedia and absolutely zero critical commentary. This list serves no purpose. NegativeMP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I jumped the gun on this article and didn't investigate available sources or write out this article any further, so I am going to strike my comment and Withdraw my nomination, but since there's possibility for a different outcome that isn't keep, I'm not closing this nomination early and will let the discussion run it's course. NegativeMP1 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this not be deletable under WP:G7 as you provided "the only substantial content of the page"? Other editors only fixed minor typos. If you changed your mind about the article, it could probably be speedily deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing that but I didn't know if it would qualify since the page was already reviewed and had existed for two and a half months. NegativeMP1 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm seeing here a list of major setups used within the competitive game. Four of them have independent articles because there is so much written about them. Other entries in this list are only subject to a few articles by publications like PC Gamer, PCGamesN, Dot Esports, or Shack News. The list handily compiles the most commonly used maps in the sport with release dates and other general information about what makes the maps unique. I think the Rock Paper Shotgun source is particular helpful in establishing this list as its own topic, and The Dot even presents them as a list in an article, and PCGamesN goes into detail about four of them at once too. A deletion nomination per "gameguide" is wild to me in this case, as the closest it gets to that is "The map has an increased emphasis on long-ranged combat". To me, this nomination just feels like disregarding competitive Counter Strike as a legitimate subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you think "Nuke" and "Mirage" have flimsy notability, merging them into the list would be very reasonable to me. A discussion for their talkpages I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying they're not notable, what I meant to say was that I don't think they are as notable as Dust II or Inferno. NegativeMP1 08:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to disregard it as a subject, I love Counter-Strike and I find levels/maps fun to write about. My primary concern here is "could each map be covered with reception and history", which I feel all that are outside of the four with articles wouldn't meet that bar. NegativeMP1 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List articles typically don't present a full history and legacy/reception for each entry. It's common on Wikipedia for lists to just be a few tables. I'm genuinely really happy this list is all (sourced) prose, that's rare to work out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I suppose I can withdraw this nomination, maybe I needed to write this article out a bit more before determining this. NegativeMP1 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of maps is WP:GAMETRIVIA. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per no. 7, I presume? In this case nearly all information is presented within the context of their significance to the "industry" (competitive scene), as per the described exception for when to include such information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I don't agree that it's gamecruft. I found at least one source talking about competitive CS maps as a whole, and many of the maps are individually notable. It's safe to say that CS maps are a topic worthy of listification, as long as it doesn't get too heavily into GAMEGUIDE content and talks about their out-of-universe significance. This list is far from violating WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four maps have their own articles, and coverage has been found. Dream Focus 04:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough meaningful coverage does exist to support this article staying. GraziePrego (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uyama Hiroto[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO. Strong evidence for a well-established career and is well known and well-liked by the social media crowd and music fans. scope_creep^Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 14 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 14:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If our subject is "well known and well liked" by people, someone should notify them to try for a few sources that'd support an article here about him. Try as I might I find zilch. We cannot keep this by simply asserting "he is notable". And the fact that a single-purpose account needed to be drafted for the article's appearance is telling. -The Gnome (talk) 16:31, 26 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of any coverage for this musician. Even using [2] to try and find sources in Gnews, there are none that show up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Lanre Messan[edit]

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

This is a puff piece for a non-notable person, whose sources vary between primary and unreliable. Look at this--if The Nation is reliable in the first place, maybe--but this is a highly promotional interview. This--well it starts with "David Lanre Messan, by the insignia (DLM) is a serial entrepreneur, idea strategist and multiple award winning global leader." That's not journalism, that's puffery, and these are the best sources. The man was CEO of the year? Well, according to CEO Review, a website owned by a marketing team. No, not notable, unless skydiving supports that claim. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While The Nation source seems likely reliable, it's almost entirely attributed to the subject, and indeed it seems to be the best source. This article itself is basically written as a professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, can't find any meaningful sources out there. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm A friendly user. Learning as coding is a hobby. Please, how can i contribute. I want to improve this. That's if its improvable 155.245.23.33 (talk) 15:32, 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 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!} 02:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Town, California[edit]

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

No information at all found about this location, except for GNIS and a passing mention ([3], which only says the name appeared on one undated map). The location is non-notable, does not have anything approaching WP:SIGCOV, and since there is another, better-documented California ghost town called Irishtown this article should be deleted to avoid confusion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:35, 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!} 19:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. We don't want to cause confusion between Irishtown and Irish Town. TH1980 (talk) 23:25, 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!} 02:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam and Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 14 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 Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been recreated multiple times after speedy deletions and the "previous AfD" is a comment objecting to one of the earlier deletions, so I'm treating this as not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt No indication of significance. Streaming and social media links are non-existant. Don't seem to have any fans originally. Just a small obscure band some fans want preserve the memory of them. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Discogs doesn't even list their album, which never went anywhere. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 22 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!} 19:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Social media and other primary sources do not count toward notability, and this group doesn't even have that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any sources to indicate notability. Sources in the article do not count towards GNG. Willbb234 23:39, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Sky (band)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to a previous proposed deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 22 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!} 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listed on Reverbnation and metal-archives, among other sites, but these appear to be UGC and/or primary. No significant independent coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:28, 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 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!} 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property Institute of New Zealand[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organizaiton-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 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!} 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the colloquialism of New Zealand could explain what this article even means. I assume it is related to real estate. It reads to me like it's a real estate group, that offers the services of "Web advertisement, conferences, networking, websites", etc. Something along the lines of a real estate umbrella group. The Wikipedia Pageviews Analysis shows mostly no views, with one or two views here and there. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 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. I'm not sure what the target article for a Redirect was being advocated for here but you can create one from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Lady Lemonade ~ You're from Outer Space[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunate, it's a decent album. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Could only find this review from Record Collector from last year. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:42, 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!} 19:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sourcing. Best I can find is a Prog review, but it's a user contribution, so non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 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. While the discussion is only 2 to 1, the keep argument on the basis that this lubricant is the uniform industry standard for the US military is not grounded in Wikipedia policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIL-L-63460[edit]

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

WP:ROTM military standard. One among thousands with no indication of significance in the article and no WP:SIGCOV of the standard itself to be found. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an unremarkable lubricant, as nominator says no case is made why this deserves a standalone article. The number of the spec suggests that there are many many similar specs; do any of these have articles?TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do, I'm working my way through them. Most seem unnotable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that the article is not remarkable, but 'CLP' is the singular weapons lubricator in the U.S. military. There are many MIL-STDs, but CLP is the only weapons lubricator in use. Probably some editing might help this? Highspeed (talk)

Editing can only go so far if there's no secondary sources. There are many things that are the "only one" used, and most of them are not independently notable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 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!} 19:33, 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Povratak otpisanih[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 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Yugoslavia. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Even if an article has been tagged for notability for a long time, the nominator is still expected to do WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST may be applicable, because a simple Google Books search yields a variety of sources. –Vipz (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with what @Vipz: said. This article can definitely have lots of sources that will add to it but it's definitely not for deletion. Боки ^{Write to me!} 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Until we get boots on the ground, aka reliable sources that support the person's notability, arguments such as "He is certainly notable" or "Sources exist" are null and void. Anyone suggesting Keep should try and improve the References section. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of recently added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a cult series of the 1970s in former Yugoslavia, and continues to be a popular culture reference to this day (as evidenced by frequency of the very phrase "return of the underdogs"). I cleaned up completely unrelated references (that only happen to use the phrase) [4] and expanded the article based on a rather comprehensive article in Nova [5]. As said above, there are multiple book sources that could be used, although I did not find one available on GBooks comparable to the Nova article. No such user (talk) 10:30, 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 keep‎. and rename to Sogou Baike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soso Baike[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub created 10 years ago that does not make any claim that the topic it covers meets GNG. No zh interwiki, no Chinese name. English name appears in a few places according to my BEFORE but only in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Basic confirmation it exists [6] and [7]. Most hits in Google are wiki mirrors. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect to Soso_(search_engine) which briefly references it. In Chinese Wikipedia this redirects to Sogou Baike[8] but we don't have an article for that. Oblivy (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: From zh:搜狗百科, it sounds like this was a former name of Sogou Baike, which is surely notable. If that's right, then the article should be moved to Sogou Baike, or at worst redirected to Sogou. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename to Sogou Baike @Mx. Granger's suggestion makes sense. In fact, the Chinese version was moved from Soso Baike to Sogou Baike in 2014[9]. Changing my vote to keep and rename. If a consensus was to emerge around merging with Sogou with a redirect I'd be OK with that too.
Comment. Interwikis have now been added by User:Yinweiaiqing. I will be happy to see it rescued, although the sources in the zh article don't seem to be very strong - one is Baidu, one is the company itself, the two others are, well, hard to judge for me b/c of the language barrier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the Sogou Baike article is ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 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!} 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sogou Baike, although I remember it under its original branding. First source at zh:搜狗百科 (the 163 article) is fine; the rest are basically OR. The permanent dead link on the zh.wp article also just needs a domain name update, but I haven't fixed it. It's a primary source anyway. Folly Mox (talk) 09:59, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City of Mandaluyong Science High School[edit]

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

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: found the source https://www.onstageblog.com/onstage-blog-news/2019/2/7/a-high-school-in-the-philippines-is-about-to-perform-an-unauthorized-production-of-hamilton-because-of-course-they-are but as that is a blog I am not sure it is enough to show notability. I did a quick search but found little. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG failure. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the nature of the blog I’d consider it a fairly significant and reliable source.

Yeah, it’s still only one source, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there exists a consensus (one of the results of the 2017 RfC that removed the general presumption of notability for verified secondary schools) that "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD."

Let’s see if anyone can find more sources. In my opinion, if Tagalog or other non-English sources can be found, it would still bolster the presumption of notability.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fully independent source, but there’s this in terms of footprint: [10] RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I’m not sure that "a quick search" satisfies the letter of WP:BEFORE… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you had not reverted my PROD I understand it could have been "soft deleted" and therefore brought back later. But as I understand this AfD process it could not. So certainly we should allow plenty of time for Tagalog speakers to research and comment on this.

Unfortunately there is no article in Tagalog - if any of the school students or teachers are reading this perhaps you would like to create one in Tagalog - then we could copy your sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not figure out their "contact us" page at https://cmshsmandaluyong.wordpress.com/contact-us/

maybe because I am not on X. Perhaps one of you who is would like to drop them a note suggesting they create a Tagalog article Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Tagalog Wikipedia rules allow them to create a page about their school of course unlike our rules Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I did found that it was created as a science high school per REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8497 but that's it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s quite interesting actually. I’m not sure whether a legislative act to create and fund an entity counts as a source, but it’s something. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source but not enough to establish notability as several schools are created with RA's. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case anyone was wondering, no, the revdelled versions of the page did not include any sources that would count towards notability.ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:10, 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kensei[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Japan, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softgarden[edit]

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

Blatant promotion without notability. G11 nomination got declined for some IMO obscure reasons. I also tagged this article for speedy deletion on dewiki and frwiki; there the cross-wiki spam was deleted in a matter of minutes, see de:Softgarden and fr:Softgarden. Icodense (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, coverage completely trivial/routine. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is notifying the author really "obscure reasons" if it's in the introduction of policy here^[1] and in the lead at the French Wikipedia^[2]? It's also mentioned at the German Wikipedia.^[3] Sdrqaz (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recommendation, not an obligation, so I don't see why this should be a valid reason to decline an otherwise justified speedy deletion request. In dewiki, it's definitely not even usual and I've also never encountered problems in enwiki until today without doing this. But yeah, seems to be really important here to some people to disrupt fighting cross-wiki spam, notifying about spam is more important than fighting spam in enwiki, I got the point. --Icodense (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. If there's a "strong consensus" for it, then notifying is the default, not the exception. We shouldn't be circumventing consensus without good reasons, and inconvenience is not one of them. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the decline reason given is... less than ideal. Most likely, there would have been less drama if it were declined for not being sufficiently blatant to be a G11 by enwiki standards, which is also the case. Procedural notes aside, this is clearly not suitable, so delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to comment because of my interaction with the nominator, but I believe there's some confusion about my decline of the G11, and part of that confusion is my fault. I did not decline the G11 because the tagger failed to notify the creator. I declined it because I didn't think - and still don't - that it met the criterion. As Alpha3031 says, it was "not...sufficiently blatant to be a G11". At the same time, I informed the nominator that they were required to notify the creator. Putting aside the policy argument about whether that notification is in fact required, I think the nominator - and probably others - interpreted my comments on the nominator's Talk page to mean that it was a procedural decline and could be remedied by retagging it, which the nominator did, and notifying the creator, which the nominator also did. I have in the past done procedural declines of tags, but I say that in my edit summary, which I did not do here. At the point that I saw the retag, I didn't realize how my comments could have been interpreted, and I thought the nominator was retagging after a straight decline, which is prohibited by policy (and by common sense), so I reverted without comment and posted again to the nominator's Talk page, meeting the same willful resistance as before. Sorry for the long-winded explanation. Y'all can go back to your voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to only consist of routine coverage, failing WP:NCORP. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination".
^ "Lors d'une demande de suppression immédiate, le proposant doit expliquer au titre de quel(s) critère(s) il demande la suppression, en n'hésitant pas à informer de sa demande le créateur de la page et ses principaux contributeurs." ≈ "When requesting immediate deletion, the applicant must explain under what criteria they are requesting deletion, not hesitating to inform the creator of the page and its main contributors of their request."
^ "Da diese oftmals die Regeln und Vorgaben der Wikipedia noch nicht kennen, ist es sinnvoll, sie auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite freundlich über die beabsichtigte Löschung zu informieren – außer bei offensichtlichem Unfug – und eine kurze Begründung zu geben." ≈ "Since they often do not yet know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, it makes sense to inform them in a friendly manner on their user discussion page about the intended deletion – except in the case of obvious nonsense – and to give a brief explanation."

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Walsh Company[edit]

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

Unnecessary article copypasted from Kevin J. Walsh and created despite draft being rejected due to lack of notability and reliable sourcing. Should be redirected to Kevin J. Walsh if not outright deleted. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Making a notable product doesn't make the company itself inherently notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to be about the owner, not the company. Please note that having a draft rejected isn't the same as having a draft declined, as is the case here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halanna Capri[edit]

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

Contested WP:G11. Even if the promotional content were to be removed, I still have doubts about Capri's notability. Digital Journal comes across too promotional to me and the website says that you can pay for content on there, which makes me doubt that this is independent journalism. I can find no mention of her in any reputable WP:RS. Furthermore, I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. The article creator makes the claim that her songs are 'chart-topping' but this claim is unverifiable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. It wasn't easy to work out what she actually does for a living, or where she's from, even searching on Google. Turns out she's an American singer, so I've added that. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. I'm not sure the sole news source included is even reliable, which makes this an easy deletion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources beyond artist bios, so those are not reliable independent sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I type this, the article says nothing beyond the fact that she's an American singer-songwriter. It used to have much more content about her apparent biography, and it was uniformly unreliable and self-written garbage that deserved to be removed as unverifiable. Do the same for the whole article, because Wikipedia is not a promotional service for beginners who have not yet been noticed by the reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources to support WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Vella[edit]

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

Non-notable Maltese singer. While he did participate in Eurovision he hasn't won it, the only win listed in any version of the article being a Malta-specific contest. I am also having a hard time finding sources to help support this man's notability in a Wikipedia sense (music reviews, coverage of his Eurovision performance, just general coverage of him that isn't an interview, etc.). (string: "glen vella") The only source that has been proffered thus far (by apparent conflict-of-interest editor CAMIM045 (talk · contribs)) is a webpage that is now dead and hasn't been archived that I can see. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While he did participate in Eurovision he hasn't won it - If you read the article well there is NO mention that he won the Eurovision!

There is the link to his facebook and instagram account!

Kindly refrain from updating any article again.

Thank you! CAMIM045 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the Eurovision contest, provided it is sourced, would have guaranteed notability then and there (WP:NBAND bullet 9). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Eurovision Song Contest Entry: https://eurovision.tv/participant/glen-vella Muzika Muzika win: https://tvmnews.mt/en/news/video-glen-vella-wins-the-first-edition-of-muzika-muzika/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/GlenVellaOfficial Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/glenvellaofficial/ CAMIM045 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite social media. What is your connexion with Vella? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage here [11] and here [12] seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Limit it to .mt sources, and a ton show up. He got engaged [13] and the typical celebrity articles, all of which can be used to flesh out the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Malta. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jhonblvk (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seem to be enough references available online to support inclusion: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2790869123/FDD89F1A622A4A1EPQ/1, https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/harsa-biss-the-official-music-video-launched-by-festivals-malta.869653, https://newsbook.com.mt/en/prime-minister-meets-muzika-muzika-winner-glen-vella/, https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Glen-Vella-s-One-Life-short-lived.364738, https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/cocciante-praise-for-glen-vella.349920, https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/glen-vella-praises-former-pbs-chairman.367026, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 01:17, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the post-Soviet states[edit]

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

This article is an original resource. No reliable source treats LGBT rights in the states within the territory of the former Soviet Union as a single topic. We do not have articles like LGBT rights in the post-Austro-Hungarian Empire states or LGBT rights in the post-British Empire states, or even LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations states. Kpratter (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kpratter (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources look fine to me to pass GNG. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macktheknifeau none of these sources describe LGBT issues in the post-Soviet states as a whole; they only address them separately in Russia, Ukraine, etc. Kpratter (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia (country), Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article contains notable subtopics that could be split into separate articles, that seems to mean there is not a reason for deletion but possibly a split (which I personally do not favour). If the nominator thinks the subtopics are too disparate to coexist in a single article they should refer to Wikipedia:Splitting. Thincat (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 30-second web search easily proves there are sources giving this topic significant coverage (e.g. [14][15][16][17]), so the article meets WP:GNG. Before proposing deletion please refer to the WP:Deletion process and relevant guidelines, and cite them in the nomination. —Michael Z. 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a keep because this is a legitimate topic. There are common themes across various post-Soviet states that stem from their histories within the USSR, and the Russian Empire before that, which make it logical to have an article about the post-Soviet states as a whole. That doesn't mean that the article is in great shape. What we have here is a big section on LGBT rights in the USSR and nothing more than a table summarising the rights in the post-Soviet states. I would like to see the USSR part split out and merged with the proposed new LGBT history in the Soviet Union article, if that goes ahead. The table is good but a table alone is not an article. We need some text to explain things. The sources found above should help with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 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 delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the World[edit]

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

made on behalf of 2603:8001:4542:28FB:64C1:4968:5AAA:4086/64 (see wikipedia:help desk#I Love the World); no comments on the merit of the request. this is their rationale:

The current sources for this article utterly fail GNG:

the first is a press release and therefore non-independent;

the second and third don't relate to the commercial at all;

the fourth is a self-published YouTube video and is thus non-independent;

the fifth is an entry in a database which provides no critical analysis whatsoever, and also has been dead for six years; and

the sixth is a primary source.

I did some looking online but failed to find any reliable, independent, non-blog articles actually discussing this in-depth. Yes, there's an xkcd comic referencing this, but any sources for that will be focused on the comic as opposed to the commercial. The article also mentions that it won the silver award at the London International Awards, so maybe it could in theory meet WP:WEBCRIT#2, but I also couldn't find any reliable, independent, non-blog sources mentioning that either--and given how much the London International Awards article smacks of promotion (it had over 25 references to its own website or to press releases, not including inline external links, before I cut them out), I'm not exactly sure that's even the "world's leading award show" it claims to be (because hey, I could find barely any sources about that awards show either!).

ltbdl (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh man, this takes me back. The campaign was famous at the time but I couldn't find anything recent on it, and since the contents of this article have already been copied over to the Discovery Fandom wiki, we wouldn't lose anything by deleting this page. Moonreach (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails GNG. London International Awards needs to be deleted as well, blatant WP:PROMO and zero GNG passing sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:47, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nupela[edit]

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

This page was previously deleted and now created again with only one reference. Looking for suggestions. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the page was previously deleted in 2009 as part of a mass deletion of articles created by Anybot. The relevant AfD can be found here. Also noting that this version and the previously deleted one are very different. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very well discussed in Gscholar, this is typical [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diatom: Clearly fails GNG. Don't think we need an indiscriminate collection of every single tiny organism. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Species and taxa are inherently notable per WP:SPECIES. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accepted taxa are notable if validly published. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easier to just improve a taxon article that already exists than to delete it and make someone else re-create it. At least this one has a validly published reference, instead of a database url. Also, redirecting it to a higher taxon when they are not synonyms or monotypic makes our editing even more difficult, so I kindly ask you not to do it, please. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, with 100's of sources in Google Scholar. Esculenta (talk) 17:33, 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. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mwe di Malila[edit]

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

Lack of notability, biography of living person, the bulk of information is unsourced. Typical self promotion, as evidenced by private details and picture upload. The TV appearance is on one episode of a scripted TV show. The art show lasted two days at a room-for-rent gallery. The article had been prodded before, hence the AfD. Minderbinder (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO. Non-notable artist with no references from RS found. Many hits on the various parts of his name in gnews, but nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotion WP:SPIP-- Ben Ben ^(talk) 11:44, 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. ✗plicit 12:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin Jarrett[edit]

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

article was sent to PROD with the rationale: "Non-notable actor/screenwriter. No independent sources provided to establish notability."

PROD tag removed by subject himself (proof: [19]) talking in the third person, with the rationale: "This individual meets all general notability guidelines (GNG) as a simple Google search will illustrate. He is also known as Rollin Jewett. He is an actor and screenwriter with notable IMDB credits, a multi-published author and poet, an award winning singer-songwriter and has notable off-Broadway playwright credits. Suggest improving and updating page rather than deletion."

This is false. Google search of either version of the name brings up either social media pages, routine entries on databases (Imdb, mubi etc) or other routine coverage. In truth, none of the achievements listed in this article convey notability, or are covered in independent secondary sources. The article was created by the subject himself; clear self-promo. Jdcooper (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always countered with "Yes, the person does likely meet notability guidelines, but we need sourcing in RS that prove that. Being well-known doesn't mean you'll have article written about you, it's the latter that we look at." Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's pretty clearly no GNG here and none of his roles are sufficiently prominent to meet WP:NACTOR BrigadierG (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have also PROD, there just isn't sourcing to be found about this person. Three whole hits in gnews, in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first two hits are Linked in, then the Miami Vice wiki, so we're off to a rocky start. Then imdb and a Rotten Tomatoes list... Unless his Google search is vastly different than mine, or it has somehow changed since the comment was made, Google is a bust. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be much more listed under his given name Rollin Jewett (Jarrett is a stage name). Perhaps the search should include those credits as well, or the page be renamed Rollin Jewett. 2603:6080:D03:5900:24DA:33E5:1719:5B89 (talk) 22:28, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians[edit]

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

Article has never been sourced, material on page challenged. Was previously nominated for speedy deletion, which was reduced to a PROD, which was challenged because the article went through AFC (though it never contained any sources) and seems to be the subject of dispute (though I can't see any dispute). I'd be happy for this to be moved to draftspace to preserve the page history in case someone wants to work on it, but it's very clearly not ready for mainspace in its current form. Additionally, I can't seem to find any secondary sources with substantial coverage of the organisation. Tollens (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. Tollens (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST This appears to be an on-line membership-only web site for medical professionals. Can't readily see what they do, possibly a political-action site for medical professionals. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly unlikely to be notable for reasons given above. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 3 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 Weyes Blood. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Holy Flux[edit]

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

With the exception of a Facebook page link to the list of tour dates there are no references for this page. How this tour is notable is not indicated. Redirect back to the album until there are more substantial sources to warrant a separate page. Karst (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the singer's page. This is a PROMO for the tour, with basically a list of dates and venues. No indication why it's a notable tour. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the singer's page or the associated album, And in the Darkness, Hearts Aglow. Significa liberdade (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, underreferenced tour that only has one Facebook post from the artist fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. Aspects (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to singer's page. The only source is a facebook post, and seems to fail WP:NTOUR. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magshimey Herut[edit]

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

An obscure political group with an impressive range of maintenance tags and a single about us link to its own website as sourcing (at the time of nomination). Barely a scrap of a mention to be found online about the group, with the only mentions seeming to be trivial in the extreme. Notably no Hebrew page exists for it. Not notable and fails WP:CORP by a long shot. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The page has now changed dramatically since nomination. The level of sourcing is still not fantastic (the Jerusalem Post piece, for example, appears to be a fairly unedited press release that has just been slapped up by an editorial grunt; the WJW piece is the most substantial), but I am now somewhat on the fence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After cursory google search, group appears to be the youth organization grown out of Herut. Not saying the group is particularly impactful, but on its origination grounds alone (and affiliated politicians and defunct political party) seems enough to pass muster. Political party is defunct, but seems to have transitioned to a still-active general advocacy movement.

That said, page reads like an ad and needs to be cleaned up.

Mistamystery (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is firmly linkable to that movement, might it make sense to merge it to that page? Both are currently very short. The present state of affairs, with the connection only tangentially alluded to in the see also section, definitely seems sup-optimal if this is the case. It would represent a gaping gap in the history here, and a missing element on the other page. And if they were linked in a parent-child manner, based on how little material there is here to summarize, it might be more duplicative than beneficial to have it hosted on two pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the references is more than just a passing mention of the group. Responding to Mistamystery's comments, this group did not grow out of Herut (which had been defunct for over a decade before this group was founded) – it would have been linked to the modern Herut – The National Movement, which was never a major political force. This article was one of several created as an obvious promotional attempt in around 2006 (the others being Yehuda HaKohen, Karma Feinstein-Cohen and Zionist Freedom Alliance (which somehow also still exists). Number 5 7 09:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: FYI, Mista's post actually linked to the movement, just piped from plain Herut in the post. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. Not sure why being a youth movement of such a minor party would bring any level of notability (and anyway, WP:NOTINHERITED applies). Number 5 7 10:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only seems one active editor who cares to keep this page alive. I pinged his talk page and will see if he has anything worthwhile to say pertaining to keeping this. Mistamystery (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage. What's used in the article does appear to be a PR piece, this is all I could find and it's trivial coverage [20]. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Significant coverage is lacking. Only a couple of the sources directly reference the organisation, but are trivial, routine, re-written press release level coverage of a non-notable organisation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:14, 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. ✗plicit 12:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Soft Systems[edit]

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

Unremarkable company, fails WP:CORP, sourced only by press releases and trivial coverage, and in a WP:BEFORE search I can't find any better coverage in RS.. No indication of notability for awards won. Wikishovel (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Arkansas. Wikishovel (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. The few sources that aren't press releases are clearly trivial or routine coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP DSP2092^talk
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, since the provided sources are press releases so are not independent. The subject might have some coverage in Hindi, but after a cursory look I could not find any sources, Hindi Wikipedia lacks an article about the subject as well. Anton.bersh (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:44, 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 Draftify‎. There is overall agreement that a list at this title shouldn't exist. Editors arguing for draftify hold that the article content could potentially be developed into an adequate list at another title to be determined, and there appears to be minimal opposition to this course of action. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of exoplanets with Bayer designations[edit]

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

A random intersection of two characteristics which isn't the subject of study or indepth sources. Exoplanets are "named" after their stars, and the stars may have Bayer designations (which basically means that they are in some of the oldest catalogues). But there is nothing special about this group of exoplanets which would make them a separate subject of study or interest in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and speedily. Planets can't have Bayer designations, only their parent stars, so it's a ridiculous title for an article.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bad title is my fault. The original title was quite oddly formatted so this was my apparently inadequate reform attempt. Apologies to the page creator and WP Astronomy. jengod (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "A Bayer designation is a stellar designation in which a specific star is identified by... BrigadierG (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the Bayer designation indicates that the host star is one of the brightest in the night sky, so it is notable in that sense. But otherwise there's no significant correlation between a Bayer designation and a presence of planets. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
draftify per WP:BITE and likely WP:NLIST. This is indeed incorrectly titled, and the initial title (List of exoplanets that host stars are visible to the naked eye:Bayer designations) also had problems, too. The page can be moved and the single line of prose can be fixed. This list could likely pass NLIST as is or with a bit of modification to something like List of exoplanets around stars with an apparent magnitude less than X for some value of X, or something more appropriate. Here's some quick google results showing some level of coverage of the subject [21][22][23], I have not done a deep dive into sources.

Please note, this is also something very recently created and worked on by an editor that started just this month, I think deletion without a chance to improve is too close too WP:BITING the newcomer for my tastes. —siro χ o 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article that says "Most of these planets are in the dimmer stars of Orion. Unfortunately, not a single one has been discovered in any of the main stars that we can see with the naked eye." is hardly a good source to show coverage of the subject... Just like an article about "They are targeting stars with magnitudes less than 8.4 (remember that fainter stars have higher magnitudes). For comparison, that’s still fainter than the human eye can see (magnitude 6 or less)" is definitely not about this list subject. Which leaves us with this, which, while also discussing some exoplanets around naked-eye visible stars, is not about that, but again about exoplanets within one constellation, no matter if they have a Bayer designation or not (a lot of the article is about Gliese 581, which isn't visible). So no, none of your sources actually is about exoplanets around stars with Bayer designations. Fram (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Draftifying doesn't generally require NEXIST to be established. Those sources were from quick googling and more of an indication that NLIST would probably be satisfied with some amount of investigation. —siro χ o 08:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment about draftifying or not, but I don't see how three sources that are not about the subject, can give any indication that NLIST would or wouldn't be satisfied. Fram (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify while a title is sorted out. List of naked-eye stars with exoplanets (where all the stars have articles) might work for me. The present Lists of exoplanets is a redirect to an inappropriate target. Thincat (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note after reading the additions above. Bayer produced his catalogue of all the stars he could see in 1603, a few years before the telescope was invented so they are all visible to the naked eye. Bayer designation of a star is slightly more objective than "naked-eye" though is much the same thing. Bright stars are of particular interest to astronomers looking for exoplanets because, generally, more is known about the star so the potential for further discoveries is greater.[24] All the stars in the list seem to have articles so the list has a navigational purpose, one of the listing rationales in WP:NLIST. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the redirect target for List of stars with exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets, as the previous target was indeed not accurate. Fram (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, or retitle if consensus can be achieved on something suitable. This is a tidy, fully-sourced table created in good faith by a new user with an evidenced interest in exoplanets. Maybe it will live in draft purgatory forever with no progress, or maybe some editorial notes and resulting changes to the lede (etc.) will make it suitable for promotion to the big show. Draft space is useful option for developing *editors* (not just specific content) who we'd like to encourage and in my opinion this would appear to be such a case. jengod (talk) 15:58, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaue's Administration[edit]

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

Tagged with unclear and confusing tag since 2010. No references and not notable. HueMan1 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources makes a merge out of the question. It's time to start stacking up the WP:TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nonsense article with zero sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing. I don't think there's any info here that can be merged back to Mandaue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. There are articles already for subject article's contents: mainly for the history of Mandaue local government (partial) and the list of its town/city heads.—Raider000 (talk) 05:53, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales national men's roller derby team[edit]

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

No proper references on the page and seems nearly a decade out of date because has not been updated. Unfortunately it seems that National Roller Derby teams get almost no coverage, therefore there is little to suggest the page is notable. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Wales. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 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. ✗plicit 12:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz art[edit]

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

Article is completely unverifiable and likely written by a large language model. The text consists mostly of vague generalities and there are no inline citations. The four general references given are bogus, as far as I can tell: the two books don't appear to exist, the two links are broken. Kyrgyz art is certainly a notable topic, but this version of the article doesn't contain anything worth retaining. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Central Asia, and Kyrgyzstan. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not speedy delete per G3. Looks like an LLM all right, with the vague and roundabout phrasing, and the nonexistent references are a dead giveaway. No place for this on Wikipedia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Culture of Kyrgyzstan. Agree with nominator that this is a notable topic but nothing as written is of value. I think a redirect will point interested parties in the right direction and is thus more useful than an outright deletion. I'm aware the Kyrgyz people and the population of Kyrgyzstan don't overlap completely, so I understand if people would prefer to simply delete. Moonreach (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on whether we leave a redirect or a red link behind, but either way I think the current history should be deleted first, given the potential copyright issues with LLM-generated text. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Culture of Kyrgyzstan. There's nothing worth keeping and deleting sidesteps the potential copyright concerns. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's findings. As for the redirect, I think it's better to keep this red as per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd iKON Awards[edit]

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

There is no evidence of any serious RS SIGCOV for this commercially motivated and entirely self-serving award, presented by 'SAUTIplus Media Hub' in Uganda. This and its parent article the IKON Awards are not backed by any reputable academy of film or other body and are all too easily abused to create 'notability' for figures where none otherwise would exist. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKON Awards) or redirect to the Awards main page IKON Awards (and merge).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) (PS- if both pages are kept, rename one IKON or the other iKON...)[reply]
Delete Presented by one company likely only honoring its products, with other shows on other networks getting a three second clip and nothing more (including their attendance). It's an 'employee of the year' ceremony in televised trophycast form. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 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!} 07:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to IKON Awards if that AfD closes as no consensus. Like IKON Awards, IMO I have concerns over the independence and SIGCOV of the sourcing. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKON Awards which applies here as well. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:11, 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!} 02:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. N. Lummus[edit]

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

No notable achievements other than being first Mayor of Miami Beach city. Sources only cover his political decisions. iMahesh (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. iMahesh (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are books, photos, online articles, news stories, family archives, first-person narratives that all equate him in stature to Carl Fisher and John Collins regarding Miami Beach's development. Modrums (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep - I'm finding several books that cover Lummus with more than a passing mention, though they are all focused on South Florida / Miami Beach. He also seems to have had some notability in business as a banker. Plenty of contemporaneous newspaper coverage. Little national coverage, but sufficient that I think a short article is appropriate per WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started a discussion on the talk page as I have access to some sources but they might fall under the original research policy. I'd like some guidance before I try to expand the article myself. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:11, 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 programs previously broadcast by Net 25. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-News[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2019. Google News Archives and Google News did not turn up reliable sources. Strongest claim for notability is a 2009 Anak TV Seal nomination but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Net 25. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 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!} 06:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Net 25 as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sileather (material)[edit]

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

Fails NPRODUCT and GNG. There are sources in the article, but none of these satisfy WP:RS, and thus don't contribute towards the product's notability as a separate product; they establish that it exists. Attempts to find sourcing on Google yields articles that a) have no author, b) are clear press releases, c) have no significant coverage, d) are not independent, and/or e) are simply not reliable. TWL has 7 articles that contain the word, but none of them are significant; all mentions are in passing, or in a list amongst many other like products (again, ENN). Google Books contains 1 book that has a passing mention of the material. Likely better included in Artificial leather instead. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, the sources are just marketing collateral etc. I came across this at AfC and had it G11 speedied a few days ago, but it seems to have been recreated (by a likely UPE editor). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm not a UPE editor. I'm just a writer who heard about a product, used it and liked it. I recreated this article after first deleting it to improve my Wikipedia writing skills. I kept the same name but not the content of the article. It's a bit frustrating to fail so I wanted to improve it to meet your requirements. I thought I'd done it with the new changes. Thank you for your criticism. RoseSophie555 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your comments. I'll try my best to apply all your comments. Please just noticed that it's a product that is getting more appreciate around the world. Secondary articles are not yet many. But I hope with time they'll. And I'll use them to improve the article. Please give a try. Don't delete it now. In few years It can be very popular. Pay attention:I'm not a UPE editor or a worker of this company. I'm just an independent writer who use the product and appreciated it. I apply some changes to make it more neutral. Please let me know what I can do more. Have a good day!RoseSophie555 (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is NODEADLINE. If sources don't exist now, when will they? You can always recreate the article once reliable sources exist for it and you can fix the issues outlined here. As it stands now, though, the article is not notable. That may change in the future, but not right now. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your comments. I get what you mean. But before the article get deleted, I'll improve it by searching and adding reliable sources and by improving existing sources. Else I'll wait and when I'll find reliable sources, I'll recreate it again. 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) RoseSophie555 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Parfett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet notability as this is "Classic one event" per last time this was deleted [25] Mason (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Events, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 19 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!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Pure WP:1E, page should never have been recreated after being deleted previously. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already paid a visit to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. We need more editor feedback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person who died in World War 1. This is about the best I could find [26]. Rest are basically trivia stories around Titanic lore, with several photos of different things. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps redirect to an article about the photo [27]. There's been a limited amount of scholarly discussion around the composition and artistic points about the photo itself and what it represents. The person isn't notable, but the discourse around the photo is interesting. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. Does the page already exist? Mason (talk) 03:13, 4 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!} 03:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Bogin Memorial Award[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. Merging to Poetry Society of America could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Awards, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 6 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!} 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep' Seems to be named after George Bogin a notable poet and translator who was widely published in literary magazines across the world. I notice all the other awards of the society have articles but they are all badly sourced. There is some weight to it, and its considered quite prestiguous. scope_creep^Talk 04:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per scope creep. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not particularly policy based but I'm not really seeing how deleting this list of winners benefits the encyclopedia? The granting body is clearly notable and the list can't reasonably be duplicated in Poetry Society of America. There's abundant name-checking of the award in poets' bios in reliable independent sources, so readers might be interested to find details. A lot of the recipients have articles, so it provides a useful resource to readers in threading our articles on poets together. Proquest finds a mention in “Connecting a Different Reading Public: Compiling 美国文学大辞典" Yu, Jianhua. The Journal of Transnational American Studies Vol. 10, Iss. 2, (2019) which is talking about the inclusions in an academic handbook covering foreign literature published in China in Chinese, implying it is a major literature award at an international level. But I guess simply coming down to the notion that our fundamental purpose is to be an encyclopedia, so strong arguments need to be raised to delete information where there is reliable-enough sourcing and no harm. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for those desperate for coverage, further trawling through Proquest finds IN FOCUS BEST BETS FOR THINGS TO DO AROUND TAOS: Local poet wins national award. The Taos News; 01 Apr 2010: TE.33 (several paras). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR search shows winners (and sometimes judges) have historically been noted in the magazine Poetry eg News Notes. Poetry, Vol. 158, No. 5 (Aug., 1991), pp. 299-300 JSTOR 20602919 and many more from other years. There are also brief comments in 3rd-party reviews of poetry that mention the award eg "But one has to admire Cader for embarking on the project (which, after all, won the 1997 George Bogin Memorial Award)." Review: The Mind's Way of Hanging On. Reviewed Work: The Paper Wasp by Teresa Cader. Review by: LARISSA SZPORLUK. Agni, No. 51 (2000), pp. 273-279 JSTOR 3007867 suggesting that the award is of significance to the reception of the work. Also noted in JSTOR 0639652. (Not sure why these weren't showing up in the Ebsco search?) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My editor hat question/not a !vote as it's also not policy based is would be what makes this an article. The award could be mentioned in the PSA article, and the winners in a category. To me, the souring depth isn't there and it could achieve your point of provides a useful resource to readers in threading our articles on poets together. Just my .02 Star Mississippi 01:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These awards lists are something that GNG is rather ill-suited for, imo. In my experience only very prestigious awards get the kind of depth of coverage that GNG fans desire. The rest get this kind of level, ie inclusion in writers' bios all over the place (which is a major reason it's useful to readers), plus brief announcements that X won, plus occasional local coverage of the form 'local author won prestigious national prize, go us!'. In cases like this where no-one doubts the existence of the object, I tend to go back to necessity to delete, relating to harm from article, which isn't demonstrated here, in my opinion. But clearly other mileages may reasonably vary. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I don't totally disagree with you, nor with @Scope creep. I just don't fully agree either. I feel like (separately from however this closes) we do need an article on Bogin though, which I may start. Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: George Bogin. It needs more but it's enough to survive for now. Star Mississippi 12:18, 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. Editors arguing for deletion did not respond to arguments presented by editors arguing for keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brokenteeth[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, WP:NSINGER criteria showing lack of significant coverage from secondary independent non-questionable reliable sources. A quick search on Naver didn't return anything helpful with Google/Bing even worse. I also couldn't find the subject charting on the Circle Chart, South Korean national chart. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are enough reliable sources in the document (Brooklyn Vegan, Kyunghyang Shinmun, Sputnikmusic, Visla, etc...), he was on a show on EBS, a major broadcaster in South Korea, this meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music). 올해의수상자 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two Korean sources identified by sourcebot as green (khan.co.kr and Newsis are trivial mentions), the rest aren't much help. I'd suspect there would be more coverage of his TV show, but Korean sourcing isn't my expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the 2017 Discussion, Sputnikmusic's "staff reviews" were determined to be reliable sources, and we can confirm that reviews from source is also staff review. Also, Visla Magazine is also an online magazine that is officially established as a company, and I think the official article here is also a reliable source. 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:49, 22 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!} 01:11, 21 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added two reliable sources to this article, is it not enough? Then I'll search for it more. The paragraph of a reliable sources is in the policy of WP:MN
올해의수상자 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage such as Sputnik Music, Brooklyn Vegan and Visla Magazine that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 5 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!} 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amman (1970)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Exact duplicate of Black September in scope and content. Article title barely supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Jordan, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pointless content fork. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clashes took place in several places other than Amman such as Irbid, Ramtha and Ajlun. The nominator did not provide any evidence that the article is identical to Black September. This discussion is unnecessary and it would have been better to focus on other matters. 1, 2

3, Dl.thinker (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black September refers to all of these incidents. Breaking them up into new articles with identical content is called Wikipedia:Content forking. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. estar8806 (talk)★ 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806: Can you elaborate how it is a CONTENTFORK? You need to explain.--Dl.thinker (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The conflict began in 1970 and ended in 1971, while this battle extended from September 6 or 17 until September 28. The Black September article is big enough. The creation of the article was based on WP:Splitting.--Dl.thinker (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Black September isn't actually all that long. The readable prose size is only 34kB which, according to WP:SPLIT, is not enough to justify a split. Because of that, any efforts to split should absolutely be discussed rather than boldly done. This article should be deleted, but I don't see any reason a split discussion can't occur (though I don't see any reason for a split). estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:00, 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!} 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a CONTENTFORK, but not a POVFORK, then redirect or merge seems in order as an ATD. Preserving history would facilitate split discussions, and also allow for editors to merge content or examine sources in the future. —siro χ o 05:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

siro, what target article are you proposing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target Black September. —siro χ o 02:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the nom's contributions reveals that there is a potential conflict of interest. The article is expandable and was still under construction when it was arbitrarily nominated for deletion! Dl.thinker (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dl.thinker, please focus on addressing problems with the article that have been brought up, not by casting aspersions. That is not a winning tactic in AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Maybe you should direct this to that editor. I did not slander them, on the contrary, I said what is clear to everyone. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are better off focusing on the discussion rather than engaging in ad hominem. Editors can be subject to discretionary sanctions when editing articles under WP:ARBPIA, such as this one. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMO, it's worth pointing out that this article could be expanded into a large article which can stand on its own: For instance, the battle for the city is discussed in some detail in books like Armed Struggle and the Search for State; Divided City: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis; Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991; and Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace. So there is enough content for a full overview focused only on this clash instead of the entire Black September. Of course, the current article lacks this level of detail. Applodion (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Notability, for a topic to have its own article, it would need to have significant coverage in reliable sources. I have looked at the mentioned books and none of them have significant coverage of a battle in Amman, other than being mere mention in the first book page 263; while second book is an autobiography; no mention of an Amman battle in the third book; and the fourth book doesn't mention a battle in its own right. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm confused. How do you not find the battle in these books? In Armed Struggle and the Search for State, the battle is covered on pages 263-266; in Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, the battle is discussed on pages 336-340, and in the fourth book it is covered in the "Civil War" chapter. There are also newspaper articles providing details, like this one, this one or this one. Naturally, there is an overlap with the wider Black September, but at least some sources see the fighting in the city as one operation within the overall war. Perhaps one issue is the article's name; in different articles and books, the event is also described as "battle in Amman", "clashes of Amman", "clashes in Amman", and "battle for Amman". Applodion (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see them but nothing about that content warrants a standalone article. Wikipedia guideline speaking, notability is yet to be demonstrated by existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Every detail about the “battle” or clashes is covered in the Black September article. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The details on the battle itself, such as the back-and-forth clashes over certain locations in Amman, are completely missing from the Black September article (and would not belong into an article on a war anyway). It's fine if you consider details on urban warfare uninteresting, but claiming that "every detail" of this confrontation is covered in the Black September article is just objectively wrong. Applodion (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me which sentences or details in this Battle of Amman (1970) article that are not covered in the Black September article? And please demonstrate how these details warrant a new standalone article, because they are so extensive that they cannot be introduced to the Black September article? Also and most importantly kindly demonstrate existence of significant coverage on the topic as warranted by WP:Notability, such as for example a dedicated chapter on the clashes/"battle" in Amman, or even a subchapter? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the aforementioned sources (as well as others such as Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict and Patrick Seale's Assad and Abu Nidal), the tactical planning of both sides for the battle as well as strategic dimensions are discussed: I.e., how long a battle would take, which forces had to used, which areas should be secured, who planned what and which group had advantages in which area. This is not featured in detail in the Black September article, and would not fit there either way. Then there was the actual progression of and conduct of the urban warfare, such as how the Jordanians attempted to retake PLO-held areas with tanks and artillery, and individual clashes for certain areas. This article could also cover reports by the civilian residents of Amman, who certainly had something to say about their homes getting destroyed. There were also the sieges of the two hotels, most importantly the Intercontinental Hotel, which are barely mentioned in the Black September article, but received substantial news coverage and could be covered in this article. Applodion (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intercontinental Hotel siege occurred in 1976 and is not connected to Black September, it could be mentioned if there's a reliable source connecting the two, but it should not be covered in the article.

This does not satisfy guidelines in WP:Notability, which are the criteria to deciding whether or not a topic deserves a dedicated article:

1-"Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." No significant coverage as demonstrated by lack of dedicated papers, chapters or even subchapters.

2- "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." which excludes all the New York Times articles mentioned. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established. We are past that point. Your arguments are not satisfying. You pointed out first that it was contentfork and later argument about notability. There was a clear effort on both sides to impose control over the capital, as it is a center of gravity and includes state institutions. A great article could be created on this topic and perhaps nominated as good. Dl.thinker (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the hotel comment by Makeandtoss: Just to note this, several sources I found stated that two hotels, including the Intercontinental, were besieged during the fighting in Amman in September 1970. In fact, one of the journalists mentioned above mentioned it as well; these sieges were not the same as the hostage incidents of 1976. Applodion (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, didn't know that. Point remains notability hasn't been established, and the effort in creating this non-notable article involves heavy original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how dozens of sources providing details on this matter is original research. Not every notable topics needs an entire book devoted to it to matter. And it's not like that these sources just mention the clashes in passing. The newspaper articles included as examples above, for instance, are almost exclusively about the battle. Heck, one is even titled "JORDANIAN ARMY AND GUERRILLAS BATTLE IN AMMAN". Applodion (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability. For the remaining sources excluding NYT, secondary ones which are few, they don’t even have a subchapter dedicated, thus the content is only extractable via a sentence here and there; i.e. lack of significant coverage and lots of original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we fundamentally disagree on what primary sources are, and what constitutes substantial coverage. For me, dozens of pages in several scholarly books constitute substantial coverage. I don't think we will ever agree on this issue. Applodion (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It's not what I think, and what you think. WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved".

IAll New York Times articles cited are primary sources. The rest are not "dozens of pages" dedicated to the "battle" in Amman, but rather dozens of pages about the Black September conflict, which as the name suggests, is about the fighting that occurred in September 1970, mainly in Amman.

WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

And again, per WP:Notability, notability is yet to be demonstrated by presence of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand quite well how Wikipedia works. "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events". The newspaper articles of the time didn't just report stuff, they also tried to analyze the situation; being a newspaper article does not automatically make it a primary source. This is a question of interpretation, and you have a certain view, which I respect but disagree with. And, again, I stand by "dozens of pages". In the examples I gave, the focus is often more on what was going on in Amman rather than the "whole" Black September which also involved fighting in many other locations. In Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 alone, two pages are devoted to the planning of the battle in Amman, two more to a strategic analysis mainly focused on Amman, and the rest of the Black September section mainly splits its attention between Amman and the Syrian invasion. You consider this a lack in "significant coverage", while I would argue that this means the topic was being addressed "directly and in detail". Obviously, we interpret it differently.
Anyway, we won't agree on this issue, and that's fine. People don't always have to agree. Ultimately, someone else might chime in and voice their support for your or mine position; then we will know whose interpretation was considered more logical. Running circles around each other isn't helping either of us; let's just wait for the vote to come in. Applodion (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. An analysis article in 1970 is still a primary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: "Examples of news reports as secondary sources: [...] Analytical reports: [...] This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information." I would argue an analysis by John L. Hess, which is used as example above, qualifies for this. Applodion (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the essay, not policy, that you cited:

“An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down”. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I argued based on the essay, as Wikipedia:No original research does not properly define primary sources in relation to newspapers, listing one possible definition by Duke University Libraries as an example which could be used. And for your quote, please note the phrase "could be read". Either way, we can both find arguments for and against our positions in the rules; they were written that way on purpose, to allow for interpretation and exceptions. I again want to emphasize that I do not think your views are wrong; I merely disagree with them. Applodion (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist given the new sources that have been brought into the discussion that imply a possible expansion of this article so that it is no longer a fork.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 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. An editor can create a Redirect should you wish to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden Road Public School[edit]

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

Primary schools are rarely notable. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage at https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-one-sydney-school-turned-around-its-reading-and-maths-results-20221026-p5bt9k.html, might be somewhat notable for a school actually. - Indefensible (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liverpool, New South Wales as alternative to deletion. There's no reason to delete the content. Deus et lex (talk) 05:48, 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!} 01:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I found was a SMH article, which appears to be already used in the article, about how the school turned the literacy and numeracy of its students around. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus that at least some of these sources provide significant coverage to warrant Keeping this article. Note: This is not a the typical outcome in an AFD for an article about a footballer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Morgan (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per new sources below. Giant Snowman 07:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage online, and the large amount transfer coverage goes beyond routine with lots of biographical content. Some significant coverage is articles like this, this, this, and this, with coverage in New Zealand as well as South Africa.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First two non-independent, third is paywalled, fourth is decent but not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 20:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:

@GiantSnowman: I also found

[28] ("Morgan was one of the better players at Maritzburg last season, helping his side avoid relegation. He is solid defensively and proved that he can also be a threat in terms of attack with decent set-piece-taking ability. Morgan was a first-team regular for Maritzburg United during his stay at the Team of Choice and so is familiar with the ins-and-outs of South African football"),
[29]
[30] ("Morgan... playing either as left-back, centre back or left midfield... returned home to re-join Auckland City... Morgan has won both the domestic league and the Oceania Champions League")
[31] ("He has enjoyed a solid 2 years in his time with the club. Dan Morgan offered both Eric Tinkler and currently Ernst Middendorp a lot of versatility... His educated left foot... The performances of Morgan seem to improve as time passes by. He is sure to continue being a valuable player for Maritzburg United. Off the pitch, Morgan enjoys a pretty simple life in Pietermaritzburg. Like many focussed footballers, his life is centralised around his job. He doesn’t seem to participate in many extra-curricular activities outside of the game")
[32] ("he still featured in 25 out of 30 PSL games this term. 16 of them as a starter. Never scored for the club but did pop up with a few assists from left back"),
[33] among many more sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recently unearthed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Sources have already been reviewed, should be closed as keep. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found in this discussion look enough to clear the GNG to me. Jenks24 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sources found are atrocious. Niche Cache is a blog/podcast of unknown reliability. Goal.com has the specific coverage of Morgan that he is a midfielder and a New Zealander. Dougal18 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources atrocious... even taking those two sources you mentioned into account, the rest of the many sources all have secondary coverage... has ongoing career as well... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:04, 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!} 02:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peat pulp bath[edit]

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

I don't think the source I found before prodding is enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found this sourced article: [34], but it appears to be tertiary. All other sources I could find were trying to sell something. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, History, Environment, and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is scientific evidence on physiological mechanisms and efficacy of peat pulp therapy. I added two sectios on both topics and provided references.--Jwdietrich2 (talk) 07:22, 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!} 01:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a topic of discussion by academics in published papers, which is normally considered a strong sign of notability. JMWt (talk) 19:12, 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. ✗plicit 04:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne International Festival of Brass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find much in the way of mentions on google apart from WP:CIRCULAR or primary sources, no sources at all cited in article. If someone can find them, I would be happy to not delete. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Multiple sources were found in the previous AfD, but were never added to the article for some reason even after the decision was to keep the article. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per the sources found in the previous AfD - AFD is not cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEXIST is quite clear on this matter: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. The sources from the previous AfD seem to establish notability, and they don't need to be in the article for that. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:51, 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!} 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NEXIST. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified in first AFD. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Not sure why this was relisted a second time. This was an inappropriate re-nomination and is an entirely non-controversial close as keep.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:SKCRIT#4. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Varun[edit]

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

He is not such a notable actor he is just operating a digital marketing agency name (name - RV Rising Entertainment & The Filmy Charcha ^[1]^[2]^[3] to publish a Press Release is not a big deal for these kinds of person. Here are some proofs of paid promotions of News articles^[4], He is also creating a paid Wikipedia pages through Instagram advertisements^[5]--Nitish Edits DWIa (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC) In fact the creator of this page also globally blocked with a reason of using multiple account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish Edits DWIa (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep All Wikipedias created by this user are notable. Please prove that articles are eligible for payment. Dear administrator, a new member who does not have a user page yet, explaining the rules of Wikipedia.Dear Admin, do you think this user might be running a single account? Please check all the pages created by me are fake, delete this page or fix my account. Angiemacc48 (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 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 merge‎ to History of slavery in Georgia#Domestic slave trade. If content has already been moved to this target article, feel free to turn this page into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jesse Kirby and John Kirby[edit]

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. They liberated themselves, and were apprehended again, as reported at the time in the newspapers. If this hasn't received significant attention afterwards, it shouldn't be treated any differently than how we treat the many crimes or human interest stories which get some attention in the newspapers nowadays, but which we don't consider suitable for an article here. I couldn't find anything in Google Books, and the article offers no other indication that this is a case which has been discussed afterwards and is more than just a short burst of (mostly identical) news reports. Creator indicates that they "can't find this in any quality secondary sources" but preferred an AfD over Prod to get more eyes on it. Fram (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Fram (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Seemed notable instance of slave rebellion in the United States, enough to warrant a mention in The Liberator and a reward from the governor. If not substantial enough for a standalone, would it be considered encyclopedic in some other form? List? Subsection of other page? Thoughts invited. jengod (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Two slaves killing their owner and fleeing is hardly a "slave rebellion". Fram (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  They killed two owners, who had recently purchased them and were moving them three states south! I think certainly slave resistance in the United States bc this wasn't just "I don't like you personally and I want your money" -- IMHO the slave trade in the United States part is key here. There were a number of on-ship Slave rebellions including the coastwise Creole case but men in an overland coffle overpowering their enslavers is fundamentally interesting IMHO. jengod (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I found this 2016 dissertation which discusses it for 2 pages[35]. If discussion agrees on deletion for a stand alone article, then I hope the content will be merged to an appropriate location rather than deleted entirely.--User:Namiba 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for surfacing this Namiba. I expanded w material therein. jengod (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Merge into History of slavery in Georgia, where there is a dearth of information about slave trading and slavery law between statehood and the civil war. Even Slave trade in the United States covers the situation in Georgia better, and is another merger target, too. This article is an example of inter-state slave trading that was going on at the time, despite it being illegal in Georgia. Preserve the statement about the law, as a minimum, because that meets WP:SUSTAINED, even if the rest of the article does not. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of slavery in Georgia. I would like to see more than a single dissertation to convince me that there was sustained coverage of this event. That being said, I think this is a useful example to mention in a larger article as Cameron Dewe notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just created a section of History of slavery in Georgia#Domestic slave trade with info about the Kirbys, the Hamburg SC slave market, and a case in Savannah in 1843, so if result is merge, that would be a suitable redirect target. :) Cheers jengod (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 28 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!} 01:28, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Madrid explosion[edit]

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

This event, as sad as it may be, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. Gas explosions occur everyday all over the world, nothing particularly notable about this one. FatCat96 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. FatCat96 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that this seems to be a tragic but with little notability and a non-lasting event. GraziePrego (talk) 02:56, 3 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. Three relistings and I still don't see a consensus. I would strongly discourage a quick return trip to AFD for another go-round. We don't need a further month considering these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Polish television[edit]

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

The article doesn’t really cover the subject stated in the title. It’s just a list of randomly chosen titles of programmes that aired that year in Polish television. Small chance it's a semi-hoax… Ambiroz (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Creator is blocked Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep all The International sections should be trashed (it's children show cruft thrown in by the usuals), but it's highly doubtful any of the actual domestic entries are hoaxes at all and the nom is advised to be very careful about using that term in the future without any proof. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What for? These articles list few shows suggesting that during a whole year merely six or seven programmes have aired, as if nothing really happened in the previous 30 years, which is highly misleading. They have absolutely no informative value and look like lists of what the author watched, not what the audience was following these years.
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of data is not an automatic disqualifier for an article, and it's natural for these non-English lists to be incomplete because Polish editors focus on pl.wiki, not here on en.wiki. I see no issue with the articles as-is and we are not going to attack any contributors here, nor are we going to show bad faith by calling their edits a 'semi-hoax'. Nate • (chatter) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you accept an article entitled “List of bones” (bone) with only seven or eight human bones itemised? When there easily could be over 200 of them, let alone other animals (assuming the whole information is available, as opposed to e.g. list of ancient rulers)? I wouldn’t say that’s an incomplete list, it’s rather a barely-started list.
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit button on each article is there for you to add entries to the list and you seem Polish-fluent. You can also easily draw from pl.wiki for what they have regarding television resources; you can't say there aren't any sources out there, but they just aren't in a language that we aren't usually drawing articles from. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not going to do that, as these “articles” need to be written from scratch, there’s nothing in them right now, and there are loads of such pages for Danish, Spanish, Portuguese… television – and they all contain little to no information. The author, a currently blocked user did something badly and it needs to be re-done (more accurately: done).
  I didn’t say there are no sources available. But the blocked author clearly didn’t do any research whatsoever. In Polish Wikipedia these would be draftified in no time because of how tinnily they’ve been made (to be honest, I thought that was obvious).
  Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop needlessly attacking editors. I don't care that they're blocked now. If you decided not to do WP:BEFORE, then the onus is on you to defend your nomination, and 'original creator is blocked, delete' is in no way a proper deletion reason. If you refuse to fix the article yourself, then there's no way I can accept needless deletion when sources invariably exist in another language. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on replying to less important parts of my comments – also I haven’t stated that the deletion should be made due to the fact that the author’s blocked. I’ll write it again then: these are just randomly chosen titles and they DO NOT (…) “provide an overview of television that year” [which they are meant to be doing], they are not even remotely close to doing so. [They are far below the minimum standard that a Wikipedia article should represent.] If you don’t want to delete them, draftify them until someone writes it better, because the way they look now shouldn’t be shown to the readers.
Ambiroz (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this meets GNG or WP:NLIST. That said, the same can be said about 2016 in German television or 2016 in French television, and many others.. will you nominate those for deletion too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you ask me to do it? / Czy to pytanie kierowałeś do mnie?
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ambiroz Yes, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There’s much more of it: Danish, Spanish, Portuguese… times 20–30! All done by the same, blocked, user. Let’s wait for the result of Polish ones first.
  Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only know 2016 in French television from my own observation: that article is just a short random list with nothing to justify calling it notable. I'd certainly vote delete if it were proposed for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify – the only issue to me is the lack of sources, which can be improved, especially if collaborated with users from Polish Wikipedia. The lists are important as they are meant to provide an overview of television that year, which is a big part of culture. Doing a general overview (E.g. just "Television in Poland") would have too much information to pack into one. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not deflating the impact of Polish television on Polish culture, I’m just saying that these “lists” aren’t really lists. These are just randomly chosen titles put in some “articles”. They DO NOT, in your words, “provide an overview of television that year.” They are not even remotely close to doing so. A currently blocked user did this badly, he or she mass-produced tones of “articles” (for many countries) that have little to no information (and therefore value) and draftifying could be a solution, because the way it’s been done shouldn’t be shown to the readers.
Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As repeated above, I don't care if the blocked user stole the Mona Lisa. This article at the very least was constructed in good faith, and I do not feel any of the content meets the definition of a hoax, and I'm not willing to remove this article because you think it's a hoax, which it isn't, it's just incomplete. Nate • (chatter) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - It's not possible to gain consensus to delete all of them and it makes no sense either to delete. Azuredivay (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No Consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 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 merge‎ to Community of Democratic Choice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Democratic Choice Youth Forum[edit]

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

Lack of notability. It's unclear whether the organization still exists or what its specific activities are. No independent sources are cited or can be found. Icodense (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 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!} 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Community of Democratic Choice. I can't find any independent coverage of this offshoot group. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:44, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lilavois[edit]

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

Non-notable person, by our standards at least--though the IP editor who reverted my PROD said, "This should not be deleted. Eric Lilavois is a public figure in the Seattle music scene and all information is accurate". Be that as it may, there are no secondary sources in the article that verify this, and Google (News) offers nothing more: just a few more or less promotional pieces on some websites. Look in the history for how promotional it really was. The IP might be User:Olenderj8, who created this and the companion piece, Crown City Studios. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I think the studio is notable (although it's full of blatant promotion), this individual is not even the founder, but one of several current owners. Or was. Anyway, there's no indication he produced any of the several notable albums recorded at the studio. My best efforts at finding sources lead me to believe he doesn't meet any of the WP:NMUSIC criteria, he doesn't meet WP:GNG, and there's not enough available to build a WP:V article substantial enough to meet WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 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 merge‎ to Mossad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katsa[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Mossad. This is just the Mossad version of a case officer, which every intelligence agency has. Every linguistic variant of the same concept does not need a separate article. The term of "Katsa" is not notable on its own. The article's sourcing refers to katsas who are in Mossad departments covered in the organization's article. No need for a separate article here. Longhornsg (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 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!} 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to hear more opinions in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mossad. As the nominator mentions, there's no need for a separate article on this, and no real indication of standalone notability. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 22:02, 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 understand that AFDs about similar subjects have closed with a deletion but I see a consensus to Keep on this one and no support for deletion besides the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Driebergen[edit]

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

I could not fathom how else this person is notable besides winning Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers. Sure, he also appeared in Survivor: Winners at War, but he didn't win the season, and his gameplay hasn't received coverage outside recaps, especially by Entertainment Weekly. Also, he was medically evacuated twice in The Challenge: USA and The Challenge: World Championship. Outside Survivor, I don't see how else he is notable for his other activities, and I don't think medical evacuations from The Challenge would suffice, would it?

WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Furthermore, should be redirected to (preferably) Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, Military, and Idaho. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se, but that in addition to his appearance in 40 perhaps the most important season and on other shows, in addition to being a marine and being a PTSD activist. I will boost article with more secondary sources but BD simply is a notable figure in American reality tv. Volvlogia (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se Sorry, Volvlogia, but at least ten (or more) articles about individual winners have been redirected per AFD discussions. Same for the Survivor: Panama winner. Furthermore, two articles about the winners of Survivor: Island of the Idols and Survivor: Marquesas have been deleted. Also, being PTSD-diagnosed can be already mentioned in the season page that mentions his win. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree firmly with those deletions and anticipate their reversals. Volvlogia (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna know the names of admins who made those decisions? You may contact them for reversal. Why anticipating? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm able to articulate expectations without taking immediate actions to realize them. The long arc of the universe bends toward survivor winners. Why the snarky tone? My focus remains on BD, who is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Volvlogia (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for making you perceive my tone to be... "snarky". That's not my intention. I was frustrated by repeated assumptions from others that being a one-time Survivor winner makes one person notable. Those assumptions were countered by AFD discussions, yet I see one like this lately. If I failed to convince you this time that my tone wasn't "snarky", then... whatevs.

Anyways, in this case, merely reappearing in Winners at War has been proven insufficient, which led two articles into being redirected. Furthermore, being medically evacuated from The Challenge didn't save another article from being deleted. I'm not confident that both reappearing and two medical evacuations would suffice, especially for someone suffering from PTSD, but I can't change your mind further. Oh well.... George Ho (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I have left to add is that if the consensus is as you say it is, then I respectfully dissent. Volvlogia (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article Not only Survivor winner, a controversial one who appeared again and also appeared on other shows (The Challenge for example). He is a notable reality TV personalityThecheeseistalking99 (talk) 17:08, 19 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!} 23:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant notability guideline is WP:NACTOR. Our threshold, accordingly, is significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows. I'm not sure that being a contestant in a reality TV show is necessarily a significant role for the purposes of applying this guideline. However, in this specific case, it probably is, considering also that the two shows had only 18 and 20 contestants, respectively. I think we can somewhat safely say that NACTOR is fulfilled. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 22:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Actualcpscm. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:38, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Return on event[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Of the two sources in the article, one's a marketing white paper, while it's just a passing reference in the other. I cannot find any sources that aren't marketing tools themselves. ~T P W 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found that this is a concept sufficiently distinct from return on investment to warrant an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 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!} 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are lacking and the topic hasn't received enough independent coverage to justify an article.

Cortador (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here, or from an internet search, to suggest 'Return on Event' is notable. Appears to be an idea put forward by a small number of agencies and if it warrants mention on Wikipedia at all I'd suggest that would be as part of a wider article on event management and not a standalone article. I note also that the article appears to have been created by an SPA with almost no other contributions and who was blocked shortly after creating this article. Hmee2 (talk) 16:46, 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 merge‎ to List of methanol poisoning incidents#Philippines. It looks like this incident is briefly mentioned in the target article but perhaps more details could be added to the mention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Luzon lambanog deaths[edit]

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

Contested prod so here we are. Article has issues per WP:NOTNEWS. While unfortunate, this incident is quite common. See here for some articles from 2019 and 2020. I think methanol poisoning incidence are newsworthy yes but not as a Wikipedia article as the most reaction you'll get is either a temporary ban or a a warning given to local distillers. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a redirect or merge to lambanog? (I also see that this was already listed in the list of methanol poisoning incidents. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with redirect per WP:ATD. However, I think list of methanol poisoning incidents would be a better target. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edited] ~~Merge~~ {Sorry, i mean} Delete and {i suggest} transfer its content (not necessarily the entire texts) to target aforementioned page. The problem is that the article, regardless of having reliable sources, fails WP:N in the first place. It happened that these incidents occurred in a span of less than two weeks, while each of them might be taken as headline story by some media outlets due to casualty counts; yet these incidents had no reported (or had little) impact to the country's lambanog production industry, as well as no known long-term effects. By the way, please take a look on my searches in Google: (1) and (2). Based on these, aside from tallies, some of later events include FDA statement; other results indicate that similar incidents occurred a year later. A 2020 article and this study might not enough.—Raider000 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of methanol poisoning incidents#Philippines as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 07:32, 4 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.