< February 26	February 28 >

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

The result was 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!} 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (arcade game)[edit]

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

I am not convinced this video game is actually notable - one of the sources even says "Information on this title is incredibly sparse" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable with nearly no sources at all, much less valid ones. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2022[edit]

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

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

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

All the three articles, created recently by the same editor, exhibit the same type of problems as identified in the related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2023. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:45, 27 February 2024 (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/2024 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2023. popodameron ⁠talk 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Lists, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the discussion closed with consensus to delete yesterday on an almost identical article, I think it's commonsense to also delete this one. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kashmiri, would you consider bundling List of terrorist incidents in the Palestinian territories into this nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding it in a moment. By the way, I don't want to discourage @WikiJunkie and I appreciate their willingness to tackle the subject impartially. Just this needs to be done differently, without breaching LISTCRIT and NPOV. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not informative enough for preserving right now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levinus Monson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Levinus Monson

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

Delete Article does not reference any sources, as well as it is a very short article with less information, so what's the point for a Wikipedia's article with no sources and a very little information given to the readers? -⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:11, 27 February 2024 (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/2024 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source is clearly indicated at the bottom of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I cannot find any sources that support meeting WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:JUDGE: "The following are presumed to be notable:....judges who have held...state/province–wide office" Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, the reference SHOULD be added to the "References" section, like every other article has. Another reason is the link may be unreliable and it is probably outdated since I can't get in it. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article only has one source, meaning it cannot be notable, otherwise it could if someone could add a secondary source. This information is obtained from a library, which could hold incorrect information. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your second sentence? I don't understand your assertion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you told us seems unreliable because the information is from the MSSA Library in Yale University. I don't know about you, but the reference seems to not be accessible. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OBITUARIES ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a Yale University library be unreliable? Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JUDGE. The Yale Obituary Record is certainly a reliable source for such basic matters as his judgeship and our sourcing policy says explicitly that sources need not be available online to be considered. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you send a link to your sourcing policy? I'm interested in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is pretty much short with no template added about this biography of this person. Also the reference seems reliable, although they need more references to support this article, along with secondary sources. 2601:249:1A81:536E:7C61:7E4:4659:DFD9 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the hard work that Innisfree987 added hours ago, there is still some citing error, such as repeated sources that are used many times in a paragraph that are the same. For example, in paragraph 1 in "Personal Life", you could add just one of the source into the end because that will just clarify that whole paragraph is support that reference instead of adding the same reference separating. More information can be found in WP:CS or this. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the reliable primary and secondary sources, it seems that there are less sources on this person than anything else, as the sources kept repeating all over the article. I will add a template for that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a citing error as the whole paragraph is not supported by that reference, only the statements cited are. Even if it were though, as I explained to you on my talk page, deletion decisions are not based on the current state of the entry, but on whether the subject itself is notable. Here the subject was a member of the New York Supreme Court, a fact that is reliably sourced, and which WP:JUDGE tells us gives a presumption of notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MinecraftPlayer321. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep the template there because even though the references are reliable, the article needs more sources than that. If that cannot be found, that is one of the reason why this article is being deleted: lack of sources, reliable or not. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987 I am sorry Inissfree87 but also the article only has 22 (or more if I was wrong) views, making this article even more worse. What’s the point of keeping an article when there are less information, the person is less famous, lack of reliable sources, and less page views? 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara McKay[edit]

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

Chairing a state party doesn't automatically make you notable, and it does not seem like she has gotten the in-depth coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Only 3 sources cited on the page: Ballotpedia, the state party's own website, and a candidate Q&A from when she ran for state senate. I can't find anything much better than that on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Hawaii. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - BLP which fails GNG, NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed election candidate with no significant coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV outside of her election to the Hawaii state GOP chair. Though that leaves me curious; is there any in-depth discussion or guidelines about the notability of state party chairs? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican Party presidential primaries[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Its also too early for one in my opinion. The 2024 election isnt even over and we already have a 2028 article that is uneccesary at the moment. Snowboi (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, seems like someone is trying to be first to create the articles. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." Just one line in several lengthy paragraphs about Ron deSantis is actually about 2028. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:SPECUALTION for now, the page can be recreated once there's relevant information. Given how much of it is speculation, I don't really see draftification as an option Shaws username . talk . 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2028 elections pages shouldn't be made until the 2024 election has actually happened. The article is pure speculation at this stage without any real content to go alongside it. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Sal2100 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All opposition to Joe Biden and Donald Trump, barring something truly insane, will be mathematically eliminated on or before March 19. We're about to have our presumptive nominees; I don't see any harm in keeping this or the 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries pages up. WorldMappings (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries WorldMappings (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not even finished with the 2024 election season though, and there is not even a 2028 general election page up, so in my opinion, it makes 0 sense to have both the Republican and Democratic primary pages up before the general election page even exists. Snowboi (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The article now contains further speculation with the addition of significantly more candidates, which was not my intention. I initially included candidates who were largely believed to be candidates in 2028, not candidates who were mentioned in one article or two as a candidate. The current article is far more conjectural than I conceived. I am willing to support this nomination, but I believe there is redemption here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until at least the 2024 election is over. Scu ba (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to delete this page, could we at least make it a draft page? There are a lot of useful references, etc here that I don't think should be wasted. WorldMappings (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this position. One-off sources do not count as legitimate potential candidacies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per the above, it's pretty much WP:SNOW at this point. Ben Azura (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + WP:TOOSOON --Devokewater|(tαlk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above without prejudice to draftification. Based on past cycles sources should start to appear soon after the 2024 election is complete in or before early 2025. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete general practice is to not have these articles until after the current election has taken place (and I don't see significant cause to deviate from that here). Indeed we don't have 2028 United States presidential election yet so it is weird for what is effectively a subarticle of that to exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, seems like someone is trying to be first to create the articles. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." The section about Gavin Newsom is completely unrelated to 2028 and just says he debated someone last year. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:SPECUALTION for now, the page can be recreated once there's relevant information. Given how much of it is speculation, I don't really see draftification as an option Shaws username . talk . 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (copy and paste from the Republican one since this is) clearly WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Sal2100 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All opposition to Joe Biden and Donald Trump, barring something truly insane, will be mathematically eliminated on or before March 19. We're about to have our presumptive nominees; I don't see any harm in keeping this or the 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries pages up. WorldMappings (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to delete this page, could we at least make it a draft page? There are a lot of useful references, etc here that I don't think should be wasted. WorldMappings (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The article now contains further speculation with the addition of significantly more candidates, which was not my intention. I initially included candidates who were largely believed to be candidates in 2028, not candidates who were mentioned in one article or two as a candidate. The current article is far more conjectural than I conceived. I am willing to support this nomination, but I believe there is redemption here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Another clear-cut example of WP:TOOSOON. TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur 108.181.160.193 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above without prejudice to draftification. Based on past cycles sources should start to appear soon after the 2024 election is complete in or before early 2025. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free State of Chukotka[edit]

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

Possibly a hoax. J. Minahan's book mentions the state in question very briefly and without any citations, and the two other sources don't mention "Free State of Chukotka" at all. Google search in Russian similarly yields only a few passing mentions on websites that don't look like reliable sources; no mentions in academic sources at all, which is unusual for historical states, even short-lived ones. Overall, the article fails WP:V. Finstergeist (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either a hoax or not enough coverage in RS. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why would Minahan make this up? As far as I can tell every other entry in his book did exist, why would he decide to make up the free state of Chukotka specifically. Passing mentions are still mentions. Yes the State only existed for a few days, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Are you saying the soviets made up the whole RevKom situation? That Mikhail Mandrikov and Avgust Berzin, who have a statue in Andayr, where simply figments of Soviet propaganda? Scu ba (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-Soviet coup in Anadyr was definitely real, but I have yet to see any sources that link it to "Free State of Chukotka" or anything like that. So far the only sources that directly mention "Free State of Chukotka" are Minahan's book and this list of flags, everything else seems unrelated. The lack of coverage in works by professional historians is definitely suspicious. Finstergeist (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept the flag being a hoax, this wouldn't be the first time this has happened with a remote anti-soviet government in Siberia, but there was still an anti-soviet government. If it wasn't called the free state, what was it called? Scu ba (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this page confirms both "Free State of Chukotka" and its "flag" to be a hoax made up by someone named O.I. Tarnovsky. "In 1990s some well-known Russian fake flag fabricator made "flag of Chukotka" and sent that flag to Pavillons, Flag Reports, etc. This seems to be also the origin of fake Civil War flags of Yakutia, Kamchatka, etc. and fake 1990's Russian Oblast and Republic flags" (see here at the bottom). Tarnovsky's publications also are likey to be the source for the entry in Minahan's list. So, Strong Delete. Finstergeist (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blog, that has a .ru domain, we're going to need something a little more concrete, and editorial. Also that blog states that the 1991 free state was a hoax, not the 1921 version. Scu ba (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
vexillographia.ru is not a blog but the official site of Russian Centre of Vexillology and Heraldry (member of FIAV), and it's generally considered to be a reliable source. The page states that Oleg Tarnovsky made up the existence of "Free State of Chukotka" (October 1921 - December 1922) after watching the movie Chief of Chukotka in the 1980s, and in early 1993 he has submitted his fabrications to some French and Spanish bulletins. This entirely explains the apparent lack of mentions of that "state" in any sources published before 1993. Finstergeist (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why Minahan would include a fictional state, it definitely existed for a short time but the mentions of the flag being a hoax may be right and need to be looked into and verified but I see no reason to delete the page. AvailableViking (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Russian Wikipedia, a similar article was deleted due to a proven hoax. So this article also needs to be deleted.--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't found a single mention in reliable Russian-language sources, so probably a hoax (or a misunderstanding). Still, I'll check a couple books on Chukotkan history at my university library later to see if this state is mentioned, though I suspect it won't be. I've also placed a hold on the Minahan book to see if I can figure anything out from there. Dylanvt (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minahan himself says "The names of states and the dates of independence are often a matter of confusion or dispute. The state names are subject to translation and interpretation, and the dates of independence are subject to confusion with declarations of sovereignty or intent, the date the event was reported or the declaration report received, or the differences in the calendars in use at the time", so it is not quite verified information. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant book I could get my hands on was Чукотка: Зигзаги истории малых народов Севера by М.И. Куликов, published 2002 in Veliky Novgorod. Part 3 of the book discusses early Sovietization of Chukotka, detailing the history from the revolution all the way through the 1920s, including the years 1921 and 1922, with not a single mention of a "Free State of Chukotka" or anything like it. I think it's safe to say this was not a real entity and can be deleted. Dylanvt (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evenly divided between those editors who argue that the article subject is a hoax and those editors who think it isn't. Calling all historians!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, in all likelihood a hoax. Ostalgia (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient reliable sources that the state was ever proclaimed or existed. Likely hoax. Sourced content could be moved to other articles like Chukotka Autonomous Okrug which only mentions the Free State and not any of the better sourced political struggles/violence that occurred at that time. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the Russian civil war is poorly documented in English on a detailed level so its hard to find much information when it comes to the anarchy the occurred during it AvailableViking (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anne-Marie Losique. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Diffusion International[edit]

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

nonnotable TV entertainment production company - Altenmann >talk 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Anne-Marie Losique MNewnham (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I am going to nominate her for deletion as well, after this one, together with her pornsite Dorcel TV Canada. - Altenmann >talk 02:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badessy[edit]

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

Non notable minor deity in vodou, only can find a single passing mention in French academic literature, but not enough to establish notability under WP:GNG - article solely consists of a quote from Maya Deren which is also just a passing mention of the deity. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Haiti. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Hill Community Church[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NORG, couldn't find secondary SIGCOV of this church. Search is complicated by similarly named megachurches Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Bible Church, but I don't think this church has any coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Georgia (U.S. state). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable Mega Church, just a church MNewnham (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a mega church, but it's physically at the epicenter of Lost Mountain, Georgia and important to the community there. When the community is inevitably incorporated, it will be the largest in Cobb County, Georgia and this church as been around for nearly 30 years serving that community. 50.192.32.21 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV demonstrated, especially for a church that is 27 years old, and the sources provided are either internal/church-created or fall under WP:NOYT. Anwegmann (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Deacon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Main contributor recently indeffed for promo. Person's claim to fame is winning 2 awards. Both awards are minor pro-diversity titles focused on encouraging women in STEM rather than being het result of a specific outstanding achievement. These received some coverage including a short profile in the Independent and some local press, but I don't think this coverage is significant or sustained enough to warrant an article. A BEFORE turns up that she has continued her career as a civil servant but has not reached any elected positions.

There was a previous nomination which closed as no consensus. My take on the existing coverage is that:

1. Although the outlets are independent and reliable, I don't think the coverage was significant (they are short, uncritical profiles in Katy's voice without any secondary commentary) or sustained.

2. I don't think the awards in question meet the bar of "well-known and significant award or honor". Although the awarding bodies are large in both cases, the actual awards are nothing like the degree of prestige required for WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARTIST.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Engineering, and England. BrigadierG (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree the awards aren't really notable, and seem early career. There is some independant coverage, but not convinced it's quite enough for WP:GNG (but I could be convinced otherwise.) Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a few more opinions here!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. The narrative of the article is disjointed and extremely weak as a result. Indeed, it is rather unclear what this person did to deserve a standalone article—lots of "has worked in [field]" and "worked with [general description of a massive technology], etc. Anwegmann (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024[edit]

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

Seems like a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV). Citations provide coverage of individual shows, but do not pretend to cover VTV dramas broadcast in 2024 as a set, as required by WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Vietnam. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE WP:WALLEDGARDEN that pretty much reads more as a VTV WP:PROMO than a neutral article. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this year and every article in years before that. Every single VTV drama could be summarised on one article. We shouldn't keep the literal showing of dates and timeslot because Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability, which says: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

The list fulfills informational and navigation purposes.
The list passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists:
1. It meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information, which says, The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
  This structured list is a chronological ordering of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024. It is an annotated list that has the dramas' broadcast dates, title, number of episodes, producers, cast and crew, theme song(s), genre, and notes.
  An editor supporting deletion said, "Every single VTV drama could be summarised on one article." A list containing all VTV dramas can coexist with a list containing VTV dramas broadcast in 2024. The lists serve different purposes. To avoid article size issues, a list of all dramas would necessarily have to cover less information than a list covering a specific year. A list containing only the dramas broadcast in 2024 is useful to readers, giving them an annotated list of what was broadcast that year.
  - Additionally, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles. The long list here would be "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", etc.
    The guideline gives the example, For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance).
    The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
2. It meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Navigation, which says, Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. This is an index of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024.
  Vietnam Television (VTV) produces Vietnamese-language dramas. Most English Wikipedia editors do not speak Vietnamese. This is why Category:Vietnam Television original programming has only 10 articles on television series, while the Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of the category, vi:Category:Chương trình truyền hình trên VTV, has many more. Wikipedia:Systemic bias discusses this, noting that As a result of systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the Global South, which includes Vietnam. Although these articles do not exist on the English Wikipedia, they exist on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Taking the 2023 list as an example (vi:Danh sách phim VTV phát sóng năm 2023), there are detailed, well-sourced articles on 2023 VTV dramas such as vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do and vi:Gia đình mình vui bất thình lình. There are not corresponding English Wikipedia articles because there are not enough English Wikipedia editors with the interest and Vietnamese-language skills to create them.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE supports keeping this list because it is a "historically significant program list" from an influential broadcaster watched by millions in Vietnam.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE says: Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
The policy says that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. 2023–24 United States network television schedule exists because it is a "historically significant program list".
VTV and its dramas are highly influential in Vietnam, so a list of its dramas broadcast in 2024 is historically significant. Vietnam Television (VTV) is a national broadcaster that is watched by millions in Vietnam (source 1 and source 2). This book from Routledge underscores the historical significance by demonstrating that VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews:
The success of imported series naturally urged Vietnamese television to make its own dramas. Producers were also prompted to focus on ordinary themes instead of repeating the old mantra of socialist heroism. Foreign soap operas thus enacted a new practice that barely existed in the previous history of Vietnamese television: competition. In 1994, three years after the success of The Rich Also Cry, the first Vietnamese television dramas were broadcast every weekend on a new program entitled Culture and Art on Sunday [Văn Nghệ Chủ Nhật]. One episode per week was an extremely low frequency for the genre of television drama but was already seen as a significant success of national television. A report in Lao Động newspaper in 1994 commented that the birth of Culture and Art on Sunday ‘demonstrated an audacious effort by VTV3 to produce quick and cheap dramas, given an extreme lack of money, technologies, and human resources’ (Tô, 1995). Major topics of Vietnamese television dramas in the late 1990s were the incompatibility between love and poverty, the desire of youngsters to escape obsolete social and cultural norms, or the bitter nostalgia of socialist veterans in market time. Just like soap operas anywhere else in the world, money emerged as the cause and solution of almost all problems. ‘Serving the audience’ also became a common concept in many reviews of television dramas that appeared abundantly in the culture section of many newspapers in the 1990s. Viewers were now treated as valued customers and ultimate judges, instead of merely passive receivers of statecontrolled messages. With the arrival of television dramas, the integration of market regulation and political duty became the defining dilemma of television in Vietnam.
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that doesn't address the concern of why these articles need to be broken out year-by-year. That's not normal practice for a television network list and is PROMO beyond a reasonable doubt since it singles out only one network's programming in a genre for a single year. I have no issue with a VTV programming article containing the network's full output; I have issues with it being presented in this manner. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list notes that lists can be "formatted in many different ways" and "can be embellished with annotations". These advantages are why breaking the articles out year-by-year has several advantages over a single list. A single list would be unable to present the information in the way the list currently does. A single list would be overly lengthy. A single list would hinder the reader's ability to easily find information.
The year-by-year list presents on a single page all the dramas that aired that year, grouping the dramas by the channel they aired on and further chronologically sorting them by when they were broadcast. It allows readers to easily find out what dramas aired that year, what genres were the most prevalent that year, what those dramas were about, and who starred in those dramas that year. It would cumbersome for readers to find this information in a single list crammed with information about decades of VTV television programs from a dozen channels.
Regarding I have no issue with a VTV programming article containing the network's full output, I would prefer a standalone list. But per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, merging this list into a VTV programming article would be far superior to deletion as it would retain this "historically significant program list".
VTV is an influential broadcaster watched by millions in Vietnam. VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews. The policies and guidelines support retaining this list of VTV dramas. From WP:NOTTVGUIDE, historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information, The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. From Wikipedia:Article size, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. From Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists, be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.
Regarding the "PROMO" concern, the list is neutrally written. I see no violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The policy says Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. I find the list written in an "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery". Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability as thoroughly analyzed and discussed by Cunard. As Cunard points out, WP:NOTTVGUIDE clearly doesn't apply here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sock creation. Inherently against WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I don't find Cunard's argument convincing and would also be in favor of deleting 2023–24 United States network television schedule. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seconding Pppery and nom. I don't see how this is plausibly useful for informational or navigational purposes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "VTV dramas" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
Sources
1. "Drama trên phim Việt giờ vàng VTV: Từ bom tấn thành 'bom xịt'" [Vietnamese drama series during prime time VTV: From blockbuster to 'flop']. 2sao (in Vietnamese). 2023-05-31. Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  VietNamNet is a sister newspaper of 2sao. The article discusses 13 VTV drama series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): Living with Mother-in-law, Come Home, Baby, When a Widower Cryed, Let's Say Love, The Blossoming Apple Tree, The Taste of Love, Under the Shade of the Tree of Happiness, Don't Make Mom Angry, My Family Suddenly Happy, Life Is Still Beautiful, Don't Talk About Love, Life is Beautiful Stars, and Is Life Still Beautiful.
2. "Phim truyền hình Việt ngày càng hút khán giả" [Vietnamese television dramas are increasingly attracting audiences]. vi:Dân tộc và Phát triển (in Vietnamese). 2021-08-10. Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  The article discusses 14 VTV series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): The Taste of Friendship, Love the perch, Say words of love, Flower season returns, 11 months and 5 days, The Destiny of Money, Living with Mother-in-Law, The Arbitrator, A Lifetime of Resentment, Birth and Death, I Miss Someone, Quynh doll, Go Home, Baby, and Someone Else's Girl.
3. Hồ, Hương (2023-12-27). "Những phim truyền hình Việt giờ vàng VTV ấn tượng năm 2023" [Impressive VTV prime-time Vietnamese dramas in 2023]. vi:Dân trí (báo) (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  The article discusses three VTV dramas.
4. "3 bộ phim VTV giờ vàng "gây sốt" nhất 2022: Lấy nước mắt triệu khán giả!" [3 most "feverish" prime time VTV movies of 2022: Bringing tears to millions of viewers!]. vi:24h (trang web) (in Vietnamese). 2023-01-01. Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  The article discusses three VTV dramas.
5. "Top những bộ phim hot nhất giờ vàng VTV năm 2022" [Top hottest VTV prime time series in 2022]. vi:Thiếu niên Tiền phong và Nhi đồng (tuần báo) (in Vietnamese). 2022-12-26. Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  The article discusses three VTV dramas
6. Châu, Khương (2020-02-18). "The best new Vietnamese television series in early 2020 on VTV. Successor, Don't Make Me Forget, Balanha Motel, Red Sand, Love and Ambition... are new dramas that will be broadcast on VTV in early 2020" [Loạt phim truyền hình Việt Nam mới đầu năm 2020 hay nhất trên VTV. Người nối nghiệp, Đừng bắt em phải quên, Nhà trọ Balanha, Cát đỏ, Tình yêu và tham vọng... là những cái bộ phim truyền hình mới sẽ được lên sóng VTV trong đầu năm 2020.]. Thời Đại (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  Thời Đại is a foreign affairs magazine. The article discusses five VTV dramas.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE
Regarding 2023–24 United States network television schedule and Lists of United States network television schedules, there was a strong consensus in the 2012 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) that WP:NOTTVGUIDE supported retaining these articles. Multiple editors quoted WP:NOTTVGUIDE's "historically significant program list" wording. To disregard this longstanding consensus would require an RfC at WT:NOT to remove this wording.

The content from a sockpuppet is no longer in the list.

The list was created by a sockpuppet in July 2023 with two entries: No Line Battle and Sunshine. Neither of these entries remain in the list, which has been completely rewritten and expanded by other editors including the established editor Mrgoahead (talk · contribs), who has written most of the article.

Multi-page list articles
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for "splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles". The long list here is "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", etc.
The guideline gives the example, "For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance)."
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
Cunard (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard, I don't understand why you're bringing up the "historically significant program list" thing here. Are you trying to argue that List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024 is historically significant? -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"VTV dramas broadcast in 2024" is a subset of "VTV dramas", which is historically significant owing to VTV and its dramas being highly influential in Vietnam. "VTV dramas broadcast in 2024" is a spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like for Cunard said and I'm also knowledgeable in Television. If this article is deleted, the remaining for list of VTV dramas should be deleted. In 2024 alone, there were works on air, is Meet You on a Sunny Day (Vietnamese: Gặp em ngày nắng). The Vietnamese Wikipedia has been article for deletion for this article and the result was keep. Thanks! Mohammed07102007 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess additional sources provided in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the highly persuasive submission by Cunard — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Pppery, OP, and asilvering. I would support this article once the season/year was over and the programming was confirmed as having aired. But until then, this sits rather closely to WP:NOTNEWS and certainly WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I understand the importance of these programs, but the importance is not obvious without proper explanation and/or contextualization within the article itself. Indeed, the explanation here of the programming's importance is functionally longer, and certainly more in-depth, than the content of the article as a whole. Anwegmann (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New arguments for deletion—namely WP:NOTNEWS and the article's flaws—have been raised after my previous responses. I will address them below.
WP:NOTNEWS is not violated
WP:NOTNEWS redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The section says Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not and lists four items. I reviewed each item to demonstrate that this list does not violate the policy:
1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. – this article is not "original reporting". It is a list of television dramas.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. – this article is not a news report. Enduring notability has been shown through academic sources and newspaper reviews.
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. – this article is not about any individuals.
4. Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. – this article is not about "celebrity gossip" or any individuals.
The list is incomplete and does not explain the importance of the programs. It is fine for the list to be imperfect.
Anwegmann wrote, "I would support this article once the season/year was over and the programming was confirmed as having aired." This raises a very good point about how the list can improved. The list includes five TV dramas that have not started airing yet. Two have unspecified airing times, while three will begin airing 4 March 2024, 5 March 2024, 11 March 2024. The list includes only one TV drama that had started airing. This is because the list is missing three TV dramas that are already being aired in 2024: vi:Chúng ta phải hạnh phúc (airing between 9 November 2023 and 4 March 2024), Chúng ta của 8 năm sau (airing between 6 November 2023 and 6 March 2024), and vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do (aired between 21 September 2023 and 19 January 2024). The list can be improved by adding the three missing dramas. The list can be improved by removing the dramas that have not begun airing yet and adding them back after they've been confirmed to have aired.
Anwegmann wrote, "I understand the importance of these programs, but the importance is not obvious without proper explanation and/or contextualization within the article itself." I agree that the list can be improved by explaining the historical significance of the dramas as discussed in the academic sources and newspaper reviews."
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

Cunard (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

This was part of a failed group nomination but for whatever reason I never got back to this it. It's one of a large group of post offices entered as settlements from Durham's place names book, but the most cursory look at maps and aerials shows that it locates to a single farmstead which has gotten larger over the years but which was never anything town-like. No GNIS entry, and the text of the article is about the post office, which isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry to have missed this one when I was cleaning up California's many non-notable geographic stubs. Clearly not a notable place, just a post office operated out of a farmhouse, failing WP:GEOLAND. All sources are about the post office or the family, not any "settlement". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the most in-depth source cited is one of those turn of the 20th century hagiographies that has to be carefully used as a source, and has not been carefully used here. It's about a person, and even says that this is that person's homestead and farm. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper review finds this evidence consistent with other claims here.James.folsom (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai-man Kwan[edit]

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

The sources in the article are all from the organization he works for, and there is a lack of in-depth third-party sources. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination statement is faulty in several ways: it is about sources in the article, but WP:GNG-based notability is about sources that can be found elsewhere, not just the ones that have already been used, and WP:PROF-based notability is largely not about independence of sources. That said, we don't seem to have evidence of WP:PROF: ignoring the business theorist with the same name, he isn't well cited enough for #C1, and his administrative position is not high enough for #C6. Not counting his dissertation, he appears to have one book, The Rainbow of Experiences, and I only found one review of it, doi:10.5840/faithphil201229448, not enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I could find another good source I wouldn't make a request to delete the article. 日期20220626 (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Uhlemann[edit]

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

Finished PhD in 2015, and seems to have fairly rapidly climbed the ranks to professor in March 2024 according to the article. However I'm not seeing how WP:NPROF is met. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Science. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start but WP:Too soon as yet. Try again in five years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Uhlemann was an Assistant professor (Lecturer) between 2020 and 2022 and a full professor (Reader) since 2023. My additional article revisions: I specified in the article what she is known for and added her work as deputy-lead of a research group, co-lead of an ESA working package, several elected positions at the German Physical Society, including her role as electred member to the DPG Council. Furthermore, I highlighted several selected key papers and awards. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage for this person, Gnews only has three hits, one as a "women in STEM" feature from a university. Seems to be a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place you ought to look is the scholar link, but it's still not enough for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. She has been on a panel discussion about Women in Science at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting 2020 (https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/38708/debate), gave a short plenary talk at the Nobel Laureate Meeting 2016 as part of the Bavarian Evening and appeared in the Universe Unravelled series of the discovery channel (https://www.discoveryplus.com/gb/show/universe-unravelled-with-the-stephen-hawking-centre, see S1E17). There have been several features including a press release (https://from.ncl.ac.uk/euclid-mission-mapping-the-universe), a mention in a Scientific American article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/europes-euclid-space-telescope-is-launching-a-new-era-in-studies-of-the-dark-universe/), interviews (https://www.eucapt.org/post/community-profile-cora-uhlemann, in the online version of the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung https://www.jetzt.de/job/wie-viel-verdient-eine-physikerin7,https://www.ja.tum.de/ja/wir/08-21-cora-uhlemann/) CosmoBuff (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews and quotes are typically primary sources and not suitable for estbalishing notabality (as per WP:PSTS). Some of the other sources help towards WP:GNG, but need to be more than just mentions. Panel discussions and giving talks seems like WP:MILL, though those mentioned do seem fairly high profile. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- h-index of 21 shows that she's highly cited enough to meet WP:Prof#C1. Central and Adams (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NPROF#1 is satisfied by h-index here. WP:NPROF cautions that citation metrics "are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied". In my opinion, they are mostly useful in distinguishing obvious cases, i.e. when they are very low or very high. Here h-index of ~20 is fine for an early career physicist, but not particularly high, and does not by itself establish notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is off to a good start, but all her awards are junior ones, not major recognition in the field; as stated above WP:TOOSOON. An h-index of 21 is certainly not notable in her field.

Ldm1954 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhlemann received an ERC Starting Grant, one of Europe's most prestigious and competitive grants, with a grant volume of Euro 1.5M https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101075919 Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Uhlemann has been invited to several conferences and workshops over the last few years. I edited the Wikipedia text accordingly. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted, so I'm striking your keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there independant coverage about the grant? I don't see how just winning grants is inherently grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the additional "keep" - I am not so familiar with the process. An ERC grant is usually highlighted by the respective university since it increases its prestige. Here you can find the statement by Uni Bielefeld: https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/forschung/drittmittelprofil/eu/erc/ Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. That statement isn't independant though, as that's the organisation she'll be working at. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comment. I am sorry, but being invited to conferences and workshops is not a viable proof for notability as everyone who is a decent scientist gets such invites. Similarly being on panels, unless she was appearing in front of the House of Commons or similar. Also, everyone gets grants so this is also not a valid proof of notability. The ERC grant is, to quote the page, for talented early-career scientist who has already produced excellent supervised work, is ready to work independently and shows potential to be a research leader. As such it is on a par with NSF CAREER and the various similar DOE and DOD starter grants. Important for an early career scientist, but not high profile. We have to be consistent. If her grants and invited talks make her notable then every science faculty member at an R1 university in the US would automatically get a Wikipedia page when they get tenure. IMHO the bar for WP:NPROF has to be higher. My vote remains a Strong Delete and revisit in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional edits to provide more proof I linked the article to Uhlemann's Wikidata (which I edited as well) so that her scientific output is now better validated by various databases (see Authority control databases section at the bottom of the article). I apologize for not linking the article to the databases before. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two triple-digit-citation first-author publications would be a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1 for me, but with a middle-position authorship I think it's not enough. Being a panelist is not an indication of notability. None of the awards or memberships listed in the article rise to the level of WP:PROF notability. And we cannot count sources like the Cambridge "Women in STEM" or "Meet the 2023 Simons Emmy Noether Fellows" towards WP:GNG, because they are from her workplaces and therefore non-independent. She's on a strong track and will likely become notable by our standards in a few years but I don't think she's there yet. It doesn't really help that the article has been puffed up with detailed listings of primary-sourced minor accomplishments, making any actual notability hard to discern among all the chaff. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As WP:TOOSOON. Subject is likely to become notable in few years, but currently does not satisfy any of the NPROF criteria. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. However, in order to continue the discussion, please provide supporting arguments for your statement. It's important to note that the discussion was relisted because there were not enough sufficient arguments provided. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't find any of the 'keep' votes persuasive, in the sense that they would establish that any of the NPROF criteria are fulfilled. I already commented on the h-index above. A regular professor position (or being a co-lead of a research group) is not enough, and the DPG positions do not really advance notability. The ERC starting grant is quite prestigious, but it is still an early career grant, and not sufficient for criterion #1. Few public appearances are not sufficient for criterion #7. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AF Compressors[edit]

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

Article about a company that reads like a press release. I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically. It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left. References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used. The French article uses the same references. Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful. I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NCORP. I analyzed anew and reached the same conclusions as nom. The text is bad but not bad enough for TNT. Hence, just like the nom, I researched notability and could find very few sources for a company that claims to be world leaders in their field. All I found was niche and/or primary. gidonb (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the basic criteria for General Notability Guidelines Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Leszczyńska (1660–1727)[edit]

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

Unnotable noblewoman. Seems to only have notability due to being a relative of notable people, which seems to be a case of WP:INHERIT. Browsing across the web shown nothing remotely able to give her enough notability to have an article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Poland. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Keep. I cannot find any sources about her, pl wiki article is completely unreferenced and even shorter. I'll AfD it there - there is a small chance someone else will find sources (I'll report here if they do), and, sadly, equal chance folks there will just pile on with 'mother of Polish king has inherent notability' or similar, as Polish wiki is more inclusionist. Oh well, not our problem. PS. Searching more under a name variant "Anna z Jabłonowskich Leszczyńska". Snippet views in [1] suggest potential notability - at least there are several sentences about her, unfortunately mostly not visible, but what I see suggests she was involved in court politics. This snippet mentions she had a strong connection to her son, eventual king. Similar content is in the snippet here; she is called the "real soul of the kings] court". Another snippet where it is said she had a major influence on her son: [2]. Ditto here. While I cannot be sure at this point which of these meet WP:SIGCOV, I think she is notable. PPS. I've added a bit to pl wiki, and can add it here if the article is kept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) There are wp:disambigation Anna Leszczyńska and another szlachcianka Anna Jabłonowska. (2) Arguments and sources of Prokonsul Piotrus are completely convincing. — Yuri V. (t•c) 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. She is historical figure who played involved in court politics of Poland, Scholars and modern historian called her as "real soul of the kings". 1.46.91.225 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As indicated in the sources provided by User:Piotrus, the coverage of this individual (while not extensive) is certainly not trivial and therefore enough to pass WP:GNG. Marquisate (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources adduced above. Has sufficient coverage to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyX DY-Building[edit]

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

This page was created in November 2023 during a brief flurry by a user whose only edits have been to corporations and projects within those corporations' works. Applied sources do not put this structure past the bar for WP:NBUILDING. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Korea. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBUILDING. An UPE/agency construction, professionally shot. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Environment, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below): Notable coverage in the Korean language. [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Side note, but several times a week an article with clear coverage in Korean gets nominated for deletion. I haven't seen anything, but is there anything in policy that asks that people search in the main language of the topic for notability before nominating? toobigtokale (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a frequent issue for articles with clear coverage in Japanese as well. From my knowledge, the applicable policy is WP:BEFORE B7 which asks nominators to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)". WP:GLOBAL and WP:NOENG are also applicable. There was also recently a deletion discussion for EnergyX which resulted in delete, seems like there may be enough coverage for notability with Korean sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the notice about potential paid editing. That's concerning. I think we could significantly cut down the article (the pic is definitely a copyvio anyway, south korea doesnt have freedom of panorama) as a compromise. toobigtokale (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Korean-language sources provided by toobigtokale. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an incorrect assumption here the nominator didn't even look. Please assume good faith. I've been editing almost 19 years on English Wikipedia and have been an administrator for over four years. Before I nominate an article for deletion, I perform a reasonable BEFORE. I'll confess my inability to read Korean-language sources handicaps me greatly. That said, machine translations of the links already present and those User:Toobigtokale provided showed nothing approaching direct detailing on this project. I nominated this page because it was created by an apparent undeclared paid editor whose edits were almost entirely restricted to created pagespace related to Korean construction interests. The copyvio pic was uploaded by the page creator here. As an administrator, I see lots of promotional articles written on English Wikipedia about subjects in content and geographical areas where English sources are not available. I try to keep my unconscious bias in check, and often I fall short. But discussing THIS topic, on English Wikipedia, my analysis of sourcing so far is that it's composed entirely of routine business news with no direct detailing of the building itself. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to post machine translations on this process's talk page... BusterD (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for incorrectly assuming you didn't look. Didn't mean to cause offense. I hope you can sympathize with where my sentiment is coming from; 3-5 times a week I de-PROD or suggest keep on articles about Korea-related topics, and almost all of the time my suggestions are accepted. In my month or so of paying attention to article delete requests on WP:WikiProject Korea, I think around 60-70% I disagree with for coverage in Korean reasons.

Based on my reading of WP:NBUILD, it seems there's some wiggle room on interpreting degree of coverage for this building. I can understand concerns that the articles are not as in-depth as desired, and encourage others to weigh in. I did think the fact that it is a zero-energy building and energy-plus building was of some interest, but acknowledge sigcov takes priority. toobigtokale (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I acknowledge that this article being part of a concerning pattern of potential paid editing is not favorable to it being kept. Again, encourage others to weigh in. toobigtokale (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an aside and I'm not picking on this particular contributor. When I see obvious paid editing I want to inconvenience the editor as much as I reasonably can. I can do that best by taking their money away from them. I will prod and nominate and report and take any action which doesn't violate CIVIL in order to remove paid-space when I identify it as such. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that makes sense and I didn't think about that; there needs to be stronger disincentivization towards paid editing. Otherwise they can/do scattershot and pray some parts of it will stick. I'm not really passionate about this topic and am happy to lean delete unless others have compelling arguments. toobigtokale (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Reformation in Economics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Pilkington[edit]

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

The subject does not satisfy notability requirements. There is no substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are a total of three reliable sources that have covered the subject in some way: (1) A Financial Times column that reviews several books and spends one paragraph on Pilkington's book[9], (2) An Irish Times review[10] of the book, and (3) an American Affairs (a magazine founded in 2017) review[11] of the book. While these reviews are on the border of satisfying WP:AUTHOR, they don't seem sufficient. There's nothing in the coverage on which to build an encyclopedic article. As it stands, the Wikipedia article appears intended to promote the subject (all the sources in the article are self-authored at the moment). Thenightaway (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Reformation in Economics, our usual solution for people who do not have independent notability (whether GNG, PROF, or AUTHOR-based, none of which he appears to pass) but who have a book that is notable enough to support its own article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Reformation in Economics makes a lot of sense. I've been troubled by this article in the past and couldn't work out whether it should be deleted or not. Doesn't seem notable enough to me. Seaweed (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as I've said before in such situations one way or the other, in past examples of marginal notability of writers. Usually the books(s) are merged into the writer's article, which is what I recommend in this place. So long story short, there is usually not enough coverage of either writer and book(s), but there is enough for both when considered in totality. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect — I believe there’s simply nothing to gain from merging because there appears to be almost no credible new information in the article that isn’t in the book article. I’d also point out that the book article reads like a sales pitch for a textbook, not an article capable of informing anyone interested in info about the book. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Estonian gliders[edit]

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

unreferenced. One suspicious entry: Lauk Flying Wing. Peep Lauk is not notable Estopedist1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is unfortunately useless and fails WP:LISTN. Geschichte (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One entry (a red link, not much a of list). Fails WP:LISTN. ExRat (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ExRat, and there's nothing to add. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coronation Street characters (2024)#Emily Wilkinson. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Wilkinson[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT, appears to have a copyrighted screenshot of the show on the article, should remerge with List of Coronation Street characters (2024) -1ctinus📝🗨 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination to List of Coronation Street characters (2024)#Emily Wilkinson. Blog sources cited are of little use, and there's not a lot about the role in RS. Wikishovel (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not much from reliable sources that can be added, and what is here is not from a reliable source. Oliver Phile (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The original redirect needs to be restored. I would have just done that rather than AFD and have done so with other creations linked to the editor. They are a confirmed sockpuppet who continues to split random characters from list entries. I reported them and they have since been blocked.Rain the 1 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by User:Cryptic. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the rationale for opening a new discussion is incorrect: the language in question does not forbid G4 for previously-speedied pages, as long as they have also had a full AfD, and this one has. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Sheikh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page recreated only hours after it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. Deletion cannot be done via WP:G4 as the page was already speedy-deleted previously, hence the second AfD. Broc (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Broc (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings to ThaddeusSholto who tagged the page for speedy deletion and to Cactus.man who correctly declined the nomination. Broc (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, 'cos this is a new one for me - where's the rule that a page can't be speedied more than once? I looked, couldn't find... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Pages can be speedied more than once, but not if they've been tagged as G4, where it says: This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion. Though it only applies to pages that are tagged under the G4 criterion, and not to other types of speedy criteria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris:See, I read that as 'if it has only been deleted via speedy and then restored then it can't be G4 but would have to go to AfD' rather than 'If it has ever been speedied and subsequently gone to AfD it can't be speedied again', which seems more logical to me... ie: AfD is sovereign... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Less than a week later? Still nothing notable, found. SALT as well Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Same user Syed Shaveer that's re-created this article again, that was very passionate about the last AfD discussion... Somewhat worrysome. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good GRIEF. Delete and SALT with extreme prejudice, fire, silver bullets, garlic. I'd propose blocking the author for disruption, and all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. Author should at least be warned for disruptive editing, and to stop recreating pages that have just been deleted. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, and some sort of remedy against article creator per Alexandermcnabb and CycloneYoris. Wikishovel (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabīne Kadirova[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2012, 2013, etc.) Furthermore, the last two sources are on a Latvian rugby player, which is (probably) not even the same person, meaning there are even fewer sources of the footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 going to email TheEpicApartmentLord a copy of the article so they can work with Rusted AutoParts as far as determining what should be added to the existent draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Backrooms (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Despite working on the article and being excited for the film, I have now realized that WP:NFF is probably in effect here, as the film has not yet been confirmed to have commenced principal photography. Perhaps it can be drafted for the time being, though.

Also a note for anyone who saw the previous template: I confused one of the AfD templates for the current one that is up. The previous AfD template did not make it so a discussion page was open. I do not think it screwed anything up, but if it did, please let me know via my talk page so I can better learn what to do in the future, and I apologize in advance.

I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion, I have switched to draftify. Also, I am an idiot who had no idea what I was doing when I tried to close the article’s discussion, I was wrong to do that. This was a huge learning experience, and I apologize for the inconveniences I caused, I should’ve been more careful.

Not0nshoree (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of this article. I'd heavily advise deleting my article, but if you wish to not have in public view, change it into a draft, please. Also, the film is likely already in principal photography as several articles have stated that filming will begin in the summer of 2023. Like I said, the film is likely in a quiet development phase, so let's just let it be. Thank you. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source has confirmed that it is in principal photography though. Also, Kane (the director) said in a live stream two weeks ago that the final draft of the script was done. So as far as we are concerned, it hasn't even begun pre-production. The Deadline article said filming would take place during summer as a joke due to Kane being in high school at the time. Not0nshoree (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of news company lies about basic information? Oh right, everyone basically. Well, I think this article should stay up for people to get actual updates and basic information. If it's not ready, don't erase it, just turn it into a draft. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is not filming. The line you are referring to about filming in the summer very much reads as a joke given his age. No lies were stated. No casting was ever announced, no announcement filming had begun was announced, nothing since the initial announcement. "If it's not ready, don't erase it, just turn it into a draft" it very much isn't ready to be in the mainspace, which is why I created a draft for it last year. It is linked down below, and frankly you would've been informed it existed when you intiated creating this page. They put in a big red banner up at the top of the page whether the topic had a draft article or not. We do not need two drafts about the same topic. So deletion is appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any particular reason why a discussion that is, to date, between two major contributors to the article AND doesn't advocate deletion, only dratification, is at AfD instead of the talk page? Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFF no production news since first announcement so extremely premature; Draft:The Backrooms (film) already exists. Rusted AutoParts 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rusted AutoParts. While researching, I didn't see any coverage that would warrant an article before it's even started production. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's merely in development - and not even active development from the look of it. It doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion in the main space. TheMovieGuy

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Džuljeta Tamsone[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Swamp[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Providence, Rhode Island MNewnham (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Providence, Rhode Island after possibly draftifying. I conducted some research on it and I believe this could warent its own article in the future per sources such as [12][13][14] [15] but the general lack of a suitable number of sources to develop the article makes me think it should be Deleted. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 23:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not on the Providence page so a redirect may surprise people. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSON→URL[edit]

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

This is a non-notable JSON derivative markup language. The only sources cited on the page are a primary source from the project's official website, and two links to JSON specs (unrelated to this derivative language). I couldn't find any unconnected sources describing this language. StereoFolic (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. StereoFolic (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot find sources that establish notability. popodameron ⁠talk 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any other sources either. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Om Bheem Bush[edit]

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

WP:NFF, film is not released yet. Broc (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Broc (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft until the film comes out, to see if more RS cover it. We have some that are marginally RS now, if more can be located closer to the release date, it would help notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. Release date is less than a month away and the film is at its post production phase. The teaser is out and there is some significant coverage about the film in somewhat reliable media publications. More coverage will be there close and after release date. RangersRus (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maha Shivratri. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fasting during Maha Shivratri[edit]

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

Fasting should be discussed at Fasting. Rules on a Shivaratra fast should be discussed at Maha Shivratri. I am not seeing a proper WP:SCOPE for this article. Content is mostly WP:NOT; some dubious health claims and a general non-adherance to WP:NPOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Medicine, Nepal, and India. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maha Shivratri: topic would be better incorporated under the main celebration's page. What's given now is a strange bit of OR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Maha Shivratri under segment Fasting. The page has good significant details from some reliable sources which could be merged to segment Fasting in page Maha Shivratri. Health claims source would be more reliable if coming from a doctor or practitioner or someone from the medical field. I would recommend only selective details to be merged that draws parallels with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To avoid WP:CSD#G4, any recreation down the track would need some very effective sourcing. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SML (YouTube channel)[edit]

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

Essentially a recreation via AFC with a different title, this article was previously deleted and salted in 2020 under the title SuperMarioLogan. Since then, the sources haven't improved substantially; there are a few articles about the creator winning an auction, and beyond that, we have passing mention of the series in this article from GoodMorningAmerica and two other articles; (a review in Common Sense Media passing mention in TeessideLive, a regional British news site). None of the other sources meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete :I think SML is notable enough, it does rely on primary sources by SML is popular on YouTube and has 6 million subscribers and millions of views. The channel may not be as big as MrBeast but is well known and Wikipedia covers quite a bit of YouTube articles like Skibidi Toilet. I think we should keep the article. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriber count does not matter, nor do primary sources. Independent, reliable sources are used to determine notability. I'll link the notability requirements and what counts as a reliable source. Also, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet had articles in the Washington Post and NY Times, this person is far from that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I do think it needs some more sources to now reconsidering it, maybe it can be moved back to draft or in a sandbox page and if I cant find anymore sources it will be deleted. Besides the Tom Brady thing and Good Morning America and the Jeffy Controversy their isnt many sources but I will continue looking PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few more sources and one article by ABC News [16] it does mention what good Morning America said, but it is a good source and it is a start. It is a passing mention but it is better than nothing. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" coverage does not address the WP:DEPTH requirement of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. their is at least a few sources on SML I could find on Tom Brady at least that cover Logan, those are the best sources I could find. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage in RS about this Youtube channel. This is about all I could find [17], not the best source... Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Best case scenario would be a WP:TNT, as it's largely sourced to YouTube videos rather than reliable, third party sources. Reads more like a fan wiki article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could rewrite the article, I feel this article does have potential. It has a few good sources like ABC News and Good Morning America. It has alot of primary sources but this article can be rewritten. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to WP:DRAFT something up and post it here to see if it persuades people. But it's probably better to persuade people it even meets the WP:GNG in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would be fine to work on a WP:TNT version in the draft space and then bring it to WP:AFC later. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Suggestion Instead of deleting it can the page be moved to a sandbox page in my namespace, or back to a draft. I agree with all of the users here that the page is not ready for mainspace. I still do feel SML can have coverage on Wikipedia, they may not have a whole lot of sources but the channel is a big channel and a recognizable part of YouTube history, I understand that doesnt mean the channel is notable, but it isnt like a small channel with 10 subs with no one talking about it, this channel is talked about alot on the internet, the channel gets alot of views and has some sources, like the Tom Brady auction and common sense media and good morning america as well as some of the controversy of Jeffy. Alot of the sources are YouTube videos which arnt the best and I agree with that. I think that WP:TNT is the best option, I can edit the page and put something together, hopefully find a few more good sources. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given a week to provide additional sourcing to support the notability of this topic. If you're unable to do that within a week, there's no reason to re-draftiy this given that it's been previously AfD'd and salted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah your right, I just cant find many sources and I don't know what to do really. I have never really been involved in a deletion discussion. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the best thing to do for the article right now is just to let it be, maybe I might create a draft again in a few years if sources improve. I do agree with everyone not enough sources. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlize Mörz[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:GNG nor any criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS having not won any medals in national or international competitions. Broc (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria. Broc (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in Austrian media [18], [19] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gymnast recently won a bronze medal at an FIG World Cup event. She won this on the floor exercise which had a field of 56 gymnasts in qualification. The gymnast is also leading the women's rankings on the event. The 2024 FIG World Apparatus Cup series allows two gymnasts per event to qualify to the 2024 Summer Olympics, so she is in contention of gaining this nominative spot for herself. theworldgymnast1 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The minority of "keep" opinions must be given less weight because they do not address or rebut - by citing appropriate sources - the reason for which deletion is sought, namely, that there is insufficient coverage of the subject by reliable sources (WP:GNG). Sandstein 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burrows (producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Flagged by someone claiming to be the subject's son, as a self-written vanity page, exaggerated and imbellished to such an extent as to be misinformation. The claim appears to be substantively correct. The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end. I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently. If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Theatre, California, New Jersey, and New York. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - there seems to be a general problem verifying the facts here, but even if there wasn't the claims of notability seem thin and I'm not seeing any better refs. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disagree on the "self-written vanity" part. While it was apparently written initially by a colleague, and also contributed to by Rnguyen1 who provided the photo used in the article, during my cleanup, I believe I removed anything that may have been biased. You may elaborate on your concern of misinformation or unverified claims, and I can answer them. Disclosure: I do not know the subject, and I only happened to undelete the page at WP:RfU. Jay 💬 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, would you agree that the restaurant, the polo and the personal life of the subject are irrelevant for encyclopedic considerations, that they may be included just because they can be but those are not by themselves knowledge worth knowing? Would you agree that the main issue here is whether or not the subject is notable as a producer? Would you then agree that we need a little bit of significant coverage to presume notability here, given the career happened far enough back but not too far back and in a country that generates a lot of coverage, in an industry that is, whatever the opposite of obscure is? Assuming we broadly agree on the above, the biggest problem I see is that most of the article is based on the presumption that the one self-published profile can be taken at face value. I simply do not think it can, especially in a BLP, especially when its accuracy has been challenged. The next source (the one from the American Film Institute) does not have enough for us to be able to tell that it's even the same person. We can assume they are, but it happens often enough that desparate sources we collate on lesser known individuals based only on a name search ends up creating a composite biography for a person that does not exist. These are not sources we can base a standalone biography on. That leaves the Los Angeles Times piece that is behind a paywall. I do not know what it has, but I suspect it does not have much simply because other sources didn't have much and the one piece that had some content was cited seven times compared to just once for that piece. But if I assume wrong and if it has usable WP:SIGCOV and if there is just one more source that also has SIGCOV, as I said, I would be glad to see one more well-sourced biography on a living person, especially knowing now that the subject was reportedly devastated to learn of its deletion.
  The impression that there is exaggeration in the biography, I get, from among others, the fact that our article says he produced Fire! while the IBDB source says it was "Produced by David Black; Produced in association with Jonathan Burrows". To editors who are partial to retention on the grounds that he produced Fletch, I caution that it should be determined what exactly his role was as can be verified from reliable sources. He is not among the many people that made it into the infobox of our article on that film (in contrast again, to this article's lead's claim that he is best known for producing that film). Generally, one film may be enough for a director or a lead actor, if the film is iconic enough, I do not think it should be for one of many producers, especially since "producer" can mean many things, not all of those imply a creative contribution. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll respond to the points about "misinformation / unverified". Which is the self-published profile referred to, is it patch.com? You suspect that the person referred to in the American Film Institute source is a different person, and the suspicion arose because the article has been challenged. I agree that additional sources would have helped, but many sources I went through were blogs or interviews that I could not include. I took the Los Angeles Times ref and associated content from Fletch (film)#Development. On producing Fire!, I provided a source other than IBDB that said “Fire on Broadway”, which I assumed was a typo with quotes for “Fire" on Broadway. I agree in hindsight that "in association with" should have equated to "co-produced" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have some experience improving articles that I decided against AFDing with what sources were there and what I could find. I would not expect to be held responsible for every little detail I miss when doing so. Indeed, that is how we are supposed to build this encyclopedia. I would have left the article entirely alone but for my misgivings about the patch.com piece. If only we could take the claims in there at face value, the worries about verification would be minor. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I removed the line referenced from the Los Angeles Times because the article did not mention Burrows at all, much less him shopping the film around in Hollywood. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I have tagged a citation needed for this at the Fletch article. Jay 💬 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see, Talk:Jonathan Burrows (producer)#Reddit "Campaign". Jay 💬 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it matters. They are not brigading; they seem largely in disagreement with OP, and most of them don't see anything wrong with the article. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not see significant coverage in RS. I do not know if there is coverage in older and offline books or magazines. The article had been soft deleted earlier, and the person who requested undeletion had suggested there are sources, but a lot of what I found was self-published content. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This seems like an attempt on character assassination by the person’s alleged son. Also, this article was active for quite some time and it was not a subject of debate all the time it stayed relevant. I just checked the talk page and there certainly have been a few very real participants suggesting additions to this article. Moreover, it also says that the person bought rights and produced fletch. The sources provided in the article are also verifiable, just not notable. You could argue to delete this just because it do3s not meet the notability criteria, disregarding the other information, but I think this article has its value of information, that should be preserved. I don’t see the point in deleting this article to be honest. RoundStrider (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article's subject meets notability criteria on a couple bases, it reads unbiased nowadays, and there is reasonable evidence showing long term effort toward continuous improvement on this article. Deleting the article would not be a constructive removal given the individual's contributions toward many notable works under arts and entertainment and particularly destructive considering the apparent campaign coming from outside sources/people/sites to influence its removal. Pedantical (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCER. Criteria 1 and 2 do not apply. As for Criteria 3 and 4, Fire! was not a notable theatre production. He also did not produce Fletch; the source merely says a production company bought the rights for it and didn't even end up producing the film. IMDB says his credit on the film is "Produced by Special Arrangement," under "additional crew"; this is not notable either, particularly if it simply means that his production company allowed another to use the rights. As for the list of theatre productions, "working as a production executive" on those isn't notable. Also, everything relies on one source, and while Patch may be reliable, the article is evidently promotional in nature: ^[1]. The wording is identical to Mr. Burrows' bio on the promotional site for Can-Can. As for the restaurant and polo stuff, mere mentions of him in articles that aren't about him at all don't make him notable. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the Patch page, it says the information was supplied by the press and PR department of the playhouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clear up a few things about the way I feel about this article. My father is a well intentioned elderly gentleman who has been retired for about twenty five years, and who is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. He wrote his own page and I stupidly felt a bit of second hand embarrassment from the way in which it was written. Ironically, I have opened a can of worms on myself and more and more people are checking out his page. I am sure this would make my father very happy, and he is having a rather rough time now, so this has made me happy and changed my perspective on the whole matter. I believe his work attempting to get Fletch produced is notable enough. Basically all I wanted cleared up with some irrelevant details about his personal life out of an overabundant and rather neurotic desire for privacy. I would like to offer my apologies, as well as my thanks, to the diligent people of wikipedia for their work on this trivial matter, as well as for all you guys do. Basically, I just wanted to protect my poor old Pops from putting too much about himself on the internet. Zanelburrows (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Everson, Emily (2014-09-21). "Papermill to Open the Season With Rousing Production of "Can-Can"". Millburn-Short Hills, NJ Patch. Retrieved October 26, 2018.

Delete. This person was a producer on only one film (or was he?), and an "associate producer" on another, which was a flop. He produced only one Broadway show (which ran for only 6 regular performances), two off-Broadway shows, one tour of an off-Broadway show (although none of the off-Broadway credits is verified) and later one regional theatre production. All of his other "producing" was as a "production executive". He was not a significant creator (only ever writing one short film). There is only one source cited for his producing, and it is from Patch.com. His ownership of the barbecue restaurant would also be, IMO, WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is only mentioned in 2 paragraphs in the production section for the film Fletch, where it is mentioned that it was co-produced by his brother, Peter Douglas. Abdullah raji (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Douglas is the half-brother of Michael Douglas. Jay 💬 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's plenty of coverage of his restaurants [20] and [21] in Gbooks, seems to be a choreographer with the same name that is discussed at length, but I'm unsure if it's even the same person [22] or this [23]; if it is the choreographer, we're likely at GNG, if not, I'm not sure... Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The choreographer has his own bio here in Wiki, so it's not this person. I just don't see enough in RS that talk about this producer person. The restaurant bits are trivial, rest seems to be a person that worked for a long time in their field but never gained much notability (as far as wiki is concerned anyway). Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's rather interesting but I don't see the sourcing to back up notability by Wikipedia standards. I did see the quote about shopping around Fletch to movie studios in a one line mention in a Quillette article, but it's a trivial mention, and of course as an opinion site that's not a reliable source anyway. Happy to revisit if someone finds better sourcing, but absent that I'm at Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of invitees for AMPAS Membership (2004)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason below:

Not just too overreliant on a single source (though reliable third party sources are available), this list doesn't do much use as Oscar nominees are going to be inducted anyhow. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - If they're notable, Wikipedia probably already has an article. Not sure why we need these lists — Maile (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A candidate for membership must be sponsored by two members of the branch for which the individual qualifies. One sponsor should initiate the sponsorship process on the Academy Member Portal. Please review your branch’s requirements before submitting a candidate for consideration. After the two sponsors have completed the online process, the proposed candidate will receive an email requesting additional information. Once completed, the Member Relations and Awards Department will be in touch if any additional information is required. Membership reviews take place once a year, in the spring. The current cycle deadline is Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5pm PT. Each candidate who receives a favorable endorsement from the appropriate Branch Executive Committee will be submitted to the Board of Governors for final approval and invitation to membership."[24]

Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It looks like the membership consists of nearly ten thousand members, and reporting additions to that membership seems to just be routine news coverage. I think it's more appropriate to keep the "Voters" section at Academy Awards updated with the latest numbers and statistical breakdown (e.g., by demographics) over time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liuyang fireworks[edit]

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

This article reads as a promotional piece, rather than an article that has a subject that meets general notability and is verifiable by reliable sources. Cold Season (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Liuyang fireworks are a significant cultural tradition from China, with a history dating back to the Tang dynasty. It has been selected as one of the intangible cultural heritages of the People's Republic of China. When searching for [浏阳花炮] in the Chinese language, there are numerous significant sources in books and media coverage. Here are some examples: [25] and [26]. Please conduct research before considering it for AfD. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The results of the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination statement show significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and that's just in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multnomah County Republican Party[edit]

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

A county-level branch of a political party with no specific claim to notability seperate from the larger party organisation. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Existing secondary sources do not focus on the county branch, rather covering election results by Republicans in Multnomah County. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Oregon. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage beyond a passing mention in the last 5 years is about recalling their leader and splitting into 2 factions,[27][28] which is hardly grounds for notability. It's unclear if the group even exists in any meaningful sense at this point. Jamedeus (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability is not temporary, even if the organization hardly exists nowadays. Has there been prior historical WP:SIGCOV of this affiliate? Curbon7 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I was able to find. Most mentions in secondary sources are along the lines of "<person name>, chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party" - but the person is being covered for other reasons and the party is not mentioned again. There are a few 2017 articles about hiring alt right groups for meeting security, and older stories about raffling an AR-15, but they tend to cover resulting outrage more than the party itself. Jamedeus (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguably, since Multnomah County, Oregon is the largest county by population in Oregon, this could be notable. I am not convinced it is, but it c could be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. There is a lot of coverage about this topic. We can use these sources to expand it: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are mostly hyper-local and not overly helpful per WP:AUD. They almost all appear to relate to one or two controversial incidents as well, rather than about the organisation specifically which amounts to trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV: "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" . AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure it has coverage, but is the regional entity of a larger political party notable? It's not even at the state level, it's a regional party. I don't think we have coverage down at this level to begin with. The Oregon Republican Party, maybe... Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local branch of a political party not notable outside its locality. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl the Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl the Tour and the discussion there concluded that it should be redirected, as there wasn't sufficient significant coverage of this tour outside of what's already summarised in the album's page, Ctrl (SZA album). The page was then recreated under the slightly different name "Ctrl The Tour" in 2023, which I have just history merged into the original page. However, it still doesn't look from the article' s sourcing or elsewhere, as if there's sufficient coverage for this to be independent, so I'd suggest it be redirected once more. — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2024 (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 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some talk of the tour a few years later, [40], with what's in the article, should be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has a fair amount of coverage, but could use a more reliable source rather than Setlist.fm, (It is in the sense like Wikipedia where any user can edit the article) I could probably see what I can do with the article. But I believe the article should be kept. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Marked as lacking sources since 2010. Most of the content was a copyvio. Searches provide nothing beyond blogs and gig listings. Nthep (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 20 February 2024 (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 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find mentions of the Square in Russia, nothing for this band. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't find any sources for UK music band. There is a russian band with the same name, but it was formed in 1990 or 1988, and it's a completely different band thus. Maybe the names of the singles could help to go deeper into the search. Roxy177 (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find some album listings for the 'Thirty Three' album but mostly on user-generated sites like discogs (the entry was created by one of the band members listed in the article so not reliable). Also clearly fails notability as per WP:BAND so a clear delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InDimensional (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Trader Funding[edit]

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

Very promotional in tone, next to no content that isn't advertising in nature. No proper references for primary information, most sources are not reliable. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Texas. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Churnalism, PR items and the like. This is PROMO with no discussion found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having PRODed this just yesterday, I arrive to the same conclusion. References are mostly from press releases, it is hard to see how this meets WP:CORP notability criteria. Article seems promotional to me. I get the impression I'm being presented a way to get a big payout with this product, which doesn't come across as very encyclopedic. Mlkj (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed the routine paid placement and SEO/PR sources. The remaining ones are likely just blogs and more PR. Was not able to find much organic material about the company; address is a mail scanning service. Will be difficult to pick out real sources from the clouds of press releases. Not clear where some of the details in the article came from, and not clear why this was moved in to mainspace. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Over the past month, I've dedicated myself to researching the relatively new field of trader funding companies. With a history of about five years, these companies are gaining traction in the market. Notably, the second-largest company in this sector is TopstepTrader. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on what additional information or insights could be included to make this article worth staying. XK8ER (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XK8ER even if this company is "gaining traction in the market" you will need strong sourcing to meet WP:NCORP. you can read WP:THREE which would be helpful. She was ^afairy 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Possible promo. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Article reads like a promo piece, and sources are PR and churnalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article's backbone includes non-reliable blogs and press releases, and a sprinkle of WP:PROMO. She was ^afairy 20:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency office[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the original article creator, and wrote the article as it was listed on requested articles. I am not inclined to disagree with the NOTDICT argument - but on the other hand, the very similar article Surgery (politics) exists, and was my basis in the limited research I could do for the article.

There is much in the news on the various attacks that constituency offices have received, which could possibly be an area for expansion that would provide something more than a dictionary could? Also, as I touched on a little in the article, there could be something more to write about the involvement of Ipsa in the selection of offices.

Maybe we could look at a merge with the surgery article? Xii Xii 14:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps edit the lead sentence to specify this is in the UK, as more than one country has a parliament. In the United States, elected officials have the same situation - such as "home office", "district office", etc. Uness someone can come up with a globally common naming for these offices, we should probably let them stay as they are. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTDICT is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. That an article may need clean-up (or expansion) doesn't, to my read, mean it can/should be deleted. On WP:GNG grounds, the topic seems notable. Perhaps there are overlaps between the surgery (politics) and constituency office titles. And happy to contribute to a merge discussion. But, as it stands, I can't support deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We call this a district office in the US, and we should cover that in this article too. A few articles about them: [41][42][43] Reywas92^Talk 18:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above discussion. Bduke (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but there is quite a bit of overlap with Surgery (politics) which needs to be resolved. Spleodrach (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG. Actually needs additional countries to be added here instead of deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I still entirely fail to see what useful content could be added to this article to distinguish it from a dictionary definition. Do Dentist's Waiting Rooms deserve an article? I thought not.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In honesty, as with the original nom, I don't think I follow the point. There appears to be consensus that waiting rooms (generally) deserve an article. As does the concept (broadly) of waiting in healthcare. (The community has also felt it appropriate for articles on other/specific types of waiting rooms - like airport lounges and green rooms.) If someone had, as you suggest, created a separate article on "dentist waiting rooms", it would likely be reasonable to redirect elsewhere. Like to the waiting room article. Rather than delete. In this case, if there are significant overlaps between constituency office (and other types of office generally) or between constituency office (and other places] for representee/representative engagement), then there are other options (alternatives to deletion) to address. If the "DICDEF" argument is that "the subject is just another a type of office/forum", then I don't (personally) read that as an argument for deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Jong-gwan[edit]

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

Can't find sigcov for athletes, no mention of this person winning a medal. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT. toobigtokale (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Bduke (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 African Muaythai Championships[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Patently not ready for main space. Single source reference. Empty section. No context. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Africa, and Egypt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and enforce the AfC process. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with only one reference that appears to be WP:PRIMARY. Nothing additional could be found in a Google search either. I oppose moving back to draft space because it is unlikely that further coverage will be made available for an event that has already concluded. I will reconsider this !vote if more sources are made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 14:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Frank, this won't achieve notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hymnology (tentatively), though I would note there is nothing at all wrong with a merge into more than one article, so certainly there is no issue with also merging some content to Anglican church music or any other appropriate target as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Four Anglican Hymns[edit]

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

I hate to have to do this, but I see no way that this passes GNG. This gets relatively few GHits, and by and large they are passing references in pages concerningother other work cited one of the four hymns (generally either Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending or Hark! The Herald Angels Sing). Meanwhile, the English Hymnal was a quarter century away from publication, and at this very late date I would have to imagine that if one compared all the different current Anglican hymnals one would find far more than four hymns appearing in nearly all of them— I dare say that there are probably a couple hundred which appear in every last one. Of the runners-up, "Sun of My Soul, Thou Savior Dear" didn't make it into the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal and while "Jerusalem The Golden" was retained in the The Hymnal 1982, the other three sections of Bernard's hymn were not, and I have never in half a century sung it. I would also point out that hymnals of the era did not officially assign tunes to the texts, which further blunts things: some recent survey in the Episcopal Church identified "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the favorite hymn, but it's a cinch that the preferred American tune, Hyfrydol, plays a large part in that. Furthermore, one can look in in the original work and see that this notion of a "great four" isn't his idea: it comes from the other work cited, by David Briggs, who I would point is not, at least by school affiliation, an Anglican in the first place (his school, Western Theological Seminary, which is in the Reformed tradition). Both of these works are more theological and devotional in character and are primarily interested in the writing of hymns in various eras, and not so much on the statistics. When all is said and done this just doesn't seem to have been that important an idea, and by the time the second edition of Briggs's work, it's likely that the number of such hymns was many times larger than four. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Great Four (hymns). While it is obvious that these hymns no longer maintain the same hold on Anglican hymnological practice that they held 140 years ago, there is adequate sourcing to retain this article in a revised form. The Atlantic, this diocesan newspaper, this opinion piece, and about a dozen parish articles all utilize this title when discussing the hymns named as among the Great Four. It is clear, at least in my eyes, that the title enjoys at least some sustained notability. Now, there might be some citogenesis going on here, but I don't have the time to investigate further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the thing: I can find a fair number of references like these, about one of the hymns, I'm not seeing anything that has any interest in them as a set, and indeed, as I said above, even the original source doesn't mention them as a set at all: his "First Rank Hymns" number 105. "O Come All Ye Faithful" is in this group, at position 75 because for whatever reason only thirty-four hymnals of the set included it. At the time Oakeley's translation was forty-four years old; now, of course, its inclusion in English language hymnals must be well-nigh universal. But nobody is going to remark on it being one of over a hundred. So this "four" is really not a thing in itself; it's just a factoid which gets brought up when talking about some of the four hymns, and indeed, if I put in a date range before this article was published, I get almost no hits at all on the phrase, and just a couple of those are legit. It appears to me that the only reason why so many of these pages on the individual hymns mention this is because our pages on those hymns all mention this. Wikipedia is the source for all these mentions, as far as I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I find the argument by Pbritti above to be convincing, while Great Four (hymns) is probably a better title for the article. My vote is "weak" for a couple of reasons: we have specific rules on grouping things together at WP:NLIST, and the term "Great Four" seems to be less important now than it was a century ago. It also appears that Rev. King may not have coined the term himself. However, it appears that the term is used fairly often today to add some heft to professional discussions of the hymns: [44], [45]. Also, a Google Books search for the term "Great Four" leads to dozens of results for books discussing the hymns themselves and/or the musicological work of Rev. King when he did his study. Here are two examples: [46], [47]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion at this time, but if a consensus forms for deletion, a merge/redirect to Anglican Hymnology should be considered; the book seems very likely to be notable. I volunteer to create the book article if needed; ping me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a bit puzzled (as someone who was a practising Anglican for around 30 years) that there is only one of these "four great Anglican hymns" is at all familiar to me, namely Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. I'm not sure I've heard of all of the other three, and I don't think I've ever sung any of them. Missing, on the other hand, is Oh come all ye faithful, which may well have been the most popular of all Anglican hymns in my youth. I'm therefore wondering if Anglican is being used in an American sense (Episcopalian) rather than the more usual sense (Church of England). If forced, I would probably vote delete, but I shan't lose any sleep if the decision is to keep. Athel cb (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on LEvalyn's redirect proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Benham 1887 which is (a) contemporary and (b) William Benham, it is clear that the number four as the focus is quite wrong. Benham gives King's Hymnology and King's ranking of hymns almost an entire half page and does not mention the number four once. Benham discusses why it's going to be increasingly outdated (from the viewpoint of 1887!) as the years go by, too. LEvalyn might have the right idea here. We either cover this as the Anglican Hymnology specifically, or under an Anglican hymns topic of some sort. I lean toward the former.
But — people! — if we don't include Benham's observation and Julian 1892, p. 343 rubbishing King's methodology then Wikipedia isn't even as comprehensive as the encyclopaedias of the 19th century were in poking holes in this. We've sourced our article uncritically and primarily to the originator of the idea, with not even the third-party analyses that have been available since within a decade of its publication.
That said, looking for 20th century sources turns up Marks 1938 which confirms what this article says about Louis FitzGerald Benson doing a U.S. equivalent as The Best Church Hymns in 1898. (James F. King was vicar of the then St Mary's in Berwick-on-Tweed, Athel cb.) So limiting this to Anglican Hymnology might be a mistake. There's a hint in another source that Robert Ellis Thompson did the same as King and Benson with his 1893 The National Hymn Book. There's definitely a subject here, and the 19th century encyclopaedias suggest that it's somewhere under hymnology. See their article titles. But almost no-one mentions the number four.
The ball is in your court, LEvalyn and Mangoe. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hymnology as AtD. Uncle G's research is thorough and persuasive. I do think some of the information at the original article would improve the hymnology article, which is currently a bit slight. Not having looked closely at Uncle G's sources it doesn't seem like the Great Four Hymns are a "thing" even if King's identification of them attracted comment; rather, it seems like there's a broader discourse by which people were trying to identify the best/most-used hymns. If we don't merge somewhere, I think the article should be deleted. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Far above, I voted "weak keep" with a suggested title change, but in light of the more extensive research done by the subsequent commenters, I can support this latest idea to Merge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Benham, William, ed. (1887). "Hymns". The Dictionary of Religion: An Encyclopedia of Christian and Other Religious Doctrines, Denominations, Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Terms, History, Biography, Etc. London: Cassell. pp. 535–536.
Julian, John (1892). "England Hymnology, Church of". A Dictionary of Hymnology: Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and Nations. London: J. Murray.
Marks, Harvey Blair (1938). The Rise and Growth of English Hymnody (2nd ed.). Fleming H. Revell Company.

comment All of the talk about merging or some similar resolution are not dealing with the issue I pointed out earlier, which is that it seems entirely likely that all the citations for this besides the primary sources are derived from our articles on these four hymns— well, two of these articles, because nobody seems to care to write articles in the popular press about the other two since nobody sings them any more. If we deleted those passages and this article, new citations would dry up because (as I've said before) once the term was coined, there seems to have been no interest in the idea until someone stated mentioning it in WP articles. And that's hardly surprising, because by the time of coinage, the original survey was quite dated, the English Hymnal having been published a little over a decade later. But at any rate,I just don't see why we need to keep promoting this notion, which is what we ae doing. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anglican church music#History. Perhaps a separate article can be justified but from an editorial viewpoint, we're better off integrating this material into a broader article that gives more context. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, although which target is up to the closing admin's sound discretion. FWIW, I am a practicing Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consensus for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toyota transmissions#E-series. ✗plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota E transmission[edit]

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

Unsourced for more than four years, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#E-series. Per nom, no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#E-series. No GNG sources come up on search even with variations and the topic is highly unlikely to be independently notable. It is possible that some print sources exist, but even then WP:NOPAGE would still make this highly questionable as a stand-alone. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toyota transmissions#H-series. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota H-Series Transmission[edit]

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

Decline once and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series: Fails NPRODUCT, no sufficient secondary sources. User3749 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series: As an WP:ATD. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series: As with the other pages in this series at AfD right now, the sourcing just isn't there to support an independent article. Feel free to leave a ((talkback)) for me if someone manages to turn up a few GNG sources, but I wasn't able to find any. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series as topic fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toyota transmissions#G-series. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota G Transmission[edit]

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

Decline four times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series: Fails WP:NPRODUCT, not enough coverage by secondary sources. User3749 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series: Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series: When this came up yesterday I tried to find GNG sources and came up dry. The target has its own issues, but they should be solvable. WP:NOPAGE would counsel against these spin-offs even if sources exist. If someone does turn up a few sources that support notability feel free to drop a ((talkback)) and I'll try to find time to look them over. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series as topic fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toyota transmissions#C-series. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota C Transmission[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission

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

Declined three times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:PRODUCT whatsoever. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12DionneJ WP:NPRODUCT states clearly "A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources" your articles had none of these. We don't just copy "build specs" from the manufacturers. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was previously deleted via AfD community consensus under an alternate capitalization at WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission. Left guide (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series: Fails WP:NPRODUCT, not enough coverage by secondary sources. User3749 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series: I looked for sources when this was still in draft but was unable to find any secondary sources. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact.
So we can have articles about cars, articles about the engines in those cars, but can't have articles about the transmissions in those cars? Make it make sense. This article expands upon existing articles, specifically, “List of Toyota Transmissions.” It follows the same structure as existing articles that are closely related. These “sister” articles have been in use for almost 2 decades with zero issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12DionneJ (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series: As an WP:ATD. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series: per the above, I don't have much to add except that when I looked for GNG sources yesterday I wasn't able to find any either. Feel free to drop a ((talkback)) if a few of them turn-up. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series. By 12DionneJ's own account, this article is based on primary sources from within Toyota and is unsourceable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series since it fails notability guidelines; agreeing with the above. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All of the individual sports mentions were removed from this article and then those edits were reverted to return to its current state. Rather than a quick renomination and replay of this AFD, I encourage interested editors to go to the article talk page to discuss which one of those options would serve readers/the project the best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning streak[edit]

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

Another WP:EXAMPLEFARM WP:LC listing that is more deserving of being listed on lists about individual leagues/championships than a standalone list. If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified deletion discussion lists
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified deletion discussion lists

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article. You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written. jp×g 🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and Conyo14 too. I'm not asking for a cleanup as winning streaks will always happen. I agree with Oaktree b, its best put it out of its misery rather than do something with it as most of those leagues has their own list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too long for a list, I'd recommend breaking it out by sport/country/something, and using better inline citations. We don't need to list every streak that has ever happened, all in one extensive list of one-liners. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. [48], [49], [50], [51]. The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. — if this is the case, you should go do this yourself if you want to save it so bad. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Me placing sources there shouldn't matter. The notability already exists. After this AfD, I'll change the article to match more of the terminology than make it just a list. It's not worth my time during an AfD though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a clean up, but seems notable as a well-known term/concept. Giant Snowman 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it is not notable as a well-known term/concept but c'mon, that list is pretty excessive, don't you think? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. You've acknowledged the concept is notable, so therefore it should not be deleted. Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally meaningless to have a vast list of winning streaks from sports which are not directly comparable (eg a hurling streak of 21 games which took over four years to complete vs a baseball streak of 26 games which took less than a month). Records about streaks in specific sports should be on appropriate records articles for those sports, and if you strip those out from this article you are just left with a DICTDEF -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of winning streaks in sports, or possibly merge with List of winning streaks with ((main article)) in the respective sections. The concept of a winning streak in sports is well-covered, even in the broadest sense as covering all sports, see "The 33 best streaks in sports history". ESPN.com. 2013-03-28. Retrieved 2024-02-12., "Six of the Best: Winning Streaks". Sports Gazette. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2024-02-12., Majev, Brendan. "Untouchable: The Greatest Streaks in Sports". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. It clearly meets WP:NLIST, and whether or not a stricter set of criteria for inclusion should be applied is a separate issue from whether or not the article should be kept. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Terminology inherent to various sports with encyclopedic content to be expanded. Svartner (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have nothing against the nomination, because it's reviewing the content on the article, however Winning streak as terminology can be a valid article. It's just the current article is dire. It needs a complete overhaul and stripping right back to the essence of the terminology. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above, though the article could do with some cleanup. Govvy raises good points. The Kip 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs cleanup per above. I believe List of winning streaks can be merged into this article, but AFD is not the place for such a discussion.
Merge with List of winning streaks. A paragraph on there explaining winning streaks is sufficient, and will help understanding of the topic. But this indiscriminate list is not at all encyclopedic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with ChrisTheDude above that a list like this should be by sport. Not only that, there should be context within each sport. This is unreadable as it stands and of no use to readers. Alleged notability is not a valid reason to keep such a mess. Batagur baska (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot hand: this comes across as an unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, created by SYNTH of unrelated events loosely tied by the use of a term for which we already have a Wiktionary entry. While the individual items in the list are sourced, I see no source that ties them all together into a single cohesive topic. The proposed target addresses the phenomenon itself, without including a list of no encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the good reasons listed by editors above. When so many editors issue a Keep or Strong Keep comment there should be no question about closing this down and keeping the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When many of the Keep !votes are of the WP:ILIKEIT type, there absolutely is a question about deleting the article. There is no question about allowing this debate to run its full course. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out that sources exist for each of the entries. There is nothing wrong with "I like it" if sources exist for notability, which is, I think, all the many Keep editors are saying. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've just defined WP:SYNTH - combining multiple sourced items into an agglomeration that isn't sourced. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was thinking of too. What are those keep voters thinking when they voted? don't they care that this list is getting out of control bloated? This is why I said its best to put it out of its misery. If this gets to a no concensus or keep verdict, this marks a new low point of Wikipedia's credibility. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all keep voting editors above. Clearly notable topic. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I share the same views on rationale as others and don't wish to repeat it" isn't ILIKEIT, maybe come up with a rebuttal to some of the arguments first. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – at its core this is a WP:DICDEF followed by an indiscriminate collection of information which contravenes WP:NOTSTATS. Aspirex (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of a winning streak is absolutely a notable topic - WP:NOTCLEANUP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[52]], [[53]], as well as outside of sports [[54]]. Article needs some work and I share some concerns with the nom about the current state of the article, but as others have already noted, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I agree that List of winning streaks should likely be merged but that is for a different discussion. User:Let'srun 23:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trim article to concept only, removing sports lists: A few points jump out at me:

The concept of a "winning streak" is notable, as illustrated by sources presented by different editors in this discussion. I suspect that there are sufficient sources out there to avoid WP:NOTDICTIONARY.
The trickier questions are:

a) whether Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, and

b) if so, whether that list should be at this article title.

I think some editors previously contributing to this discussion have cast !votes answering one but not both of these questions, which might render determining consensus difficult if we're talking across each other.

I'm ambivalent on question 2a, though I think it's generous to suggest that a list of longest-winning streaks will be maintained faithfully. But on question 2b, I definitely do not think that the list of winning streaks should be at this article title. My instinct is that Winning streak should be reserved to winning streaks as a concept, with some examples if necessary, while the current article's contents should be redistributed to List of winning streaks and similar articles. For this position, there is no real AfD !vote that suffices, because it's essentially a redistribution of contents away from the article. Whether those contents should be hosted on another page of the encyclopaedia is another question, and one we don't have to discuss at this AfD. Interested editors can retrieve those contents from the page history after a trim, and include elsewhere as appropriate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an unhelpful exercise, but I've tried to understand previous contributors' views with this framework. This is my understanding of their positions from what they have explicitly said (feel free to amend if you disagree).

1. Is there notability beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY?

Yes: JPxG, Conyo14, GiantSnowman, Svartner, Govvy, The Kip, Das osmnezz, BeanieFan11, Let'srun and IgnatiusofLondon

No: Flibrigit, ChrisTheDude and Aspirex

2a. Should Wikipedia host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks?

Yes: Frank Anchor and Randy Kryn

No: SpacedFarmer, Oaktree b, ChrisTheDude, Govvy, The Kip, Joseph2302, Batagur baska, OwenX and Aspirex

2b. If Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, should it be at this article title?

Yes: has anyone taken this position explicitly?

No: Govvy, The Kip and IgnatiusofLondon

As the list suggests, editors seem to be discussing either 1 or 2a, but rarely both. The way towards consensus is probably if editors start engaging across the questions... IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for 2a, I'm whatever. That's just semantics of the article name. Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep per subsequent article revisions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is too unclear. Giving it another try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just get rid of all the waffle about swimming etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But obviously it needs clean up. Some of the suggestions in here for that are good ones, and while discussion for the clean-up should be at the listicle talk page, I will say that it at least needs a more indicative title, well-sourced expansion on the concept, and clear inclusion guidelines for the list. Anyway, since it's clearly not any more a dictionary entry than other sports terms, there has been no reason for deletion even provided in creating the nom and it should be a procedural close (or, at this point, a consensus-driven close) for "keep and go discuss improvements at talk". Kingsif (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this appears to be heading for no consensus which is keep by default. That's a pity. A perfectly good policy reason for deletion was given up front in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and if you pull the directory out it is just WP:DICDEF. To think of this another way, step back and consider readers of Wikipedia. How does this mishmash of editor curated disparate winning streaks serve a reader's information requirement? If they want to know the longest basketball winning streak, they'll look on a basketball page. If they want to know what a winning streak is, they will be better advised to check wiktionary. If they want to know the longest surf championship streak, longest tiddlywinks streak, or conkers, or dominoes, they are out of luck. This cannot be comprehensive and the list of editor chosen winning streaks fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable collection. This page is not a good fit for Wikipedia nor any encyclopaedia. It should go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, the articles on hat-trick, penalty shoot-out, sports season - off the top of my head, among who knows how many others - should go because their primary purpose is to explain a sports concept. Not every article with such primary purpose, however, is a dictionary entry, and !voters should do well to know the difference between a simple definition and an article (or what could be an article) that has encyclopedic purpose for detailing e.g. the history of such concepts, their impact in sports, how they are perceived socially. Nobody is denying that the state of this listicle is awful, but it has potential to be good. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keep comments. If you don't like the article (WP:IDONTLIKEIT?), clean it up (trim) or pass on reading it. The article can be rescued. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at all the votes, all the keep voters are circlejerking off each other with not much to say other than agreeing with each other whilst all the delete voters have more to say. I take this sum up sports fans. Circlejerking is the team sport for them when their favorite sport is at off season. If we were to ''clean it up (trim)'' then this will get reverted, telling editors to go to AfD, so here we are. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have failed to come up with actual responses to !keep votes, none of which are circlejerking [because] their favorite sport is at off season, and while we're at it, all the !delete votes basically seem to agree with your non-reason nomination. Do you want your WP:CIVIL warning now or when you lie about and insult those who disagree with you next? Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about bloat is already solved by the "Table of Contents". Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. Two valid points of view exist here (see my essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB), and since the Keep point-of-view has a solid number of experienced editors favoring it then it would have among readers as well. Readers come to the page either looking for either something in particular or just to browse to enhance their knowledge of the overall topic "Winning streaks". 46,000 have done so in the last year. Encyclopedic purpose is thus fulfilled by its existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. I can't. No sport that I'm interested in is listed. Neither can I see winning streaks in war, in casinos, computer games or anything else. Your rule of thumb essay is not policy. The policy reasons for deletion are clear, and I do not see any policy reasons for retaining this hot mess. I can add tiddlywinks and Fortnite, but editor curation of the list of winning streaks is WP:OR. I am not seeing any policy case for retention, and neither has anyone presented any sources that would show this or any listing would meet WP:LISTN. We can learn nothing by page hits. We do not know that any of those page hits were people satisfying their information requirement, and again, it is not at all clear how any information requirement is met by this. No one is saying there should be no mention of, say, the record basketball winning streaks - but if that is what people are searching for, they will find that and more and better relevant and targeted information on those pages rather than this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It covers most sports, which ones are missing? Winning streaks in casinos would be interesting, good idea (I don't know about winning streaks in wars, a concept for a short story though, Vonnegut would have hit it out of the park). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With an estimated 8,000 sports worldwide, it does not even come close to being comprehensive. And I see it does have some computer games, but it is missing a lot of those too. And dear, oh dear, it doesn't even have Scrabble. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be that comprehensive, most readers would look for the major sports. Maybe the first thousand or so (kidding). Scrabble, a good idea! Does it have a page for records? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs massive cleanup and formatting, but it serves a valid, interesting, and useful purpose and covers a term—and measure of achievement, if not legacy—that is active and well-established in the lexicon of modern sports throughout the world. This seems very obvious to me. Anwegmann (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNT. Per Ignatius. Pare down to the basic concept supplemented with some of whichever examples are used in multiple RS that cover the concept broadly (not listicles). The bulk of the article should be sourced to these general-concept refs, with some sport-specific treatments of winning streaks addressed when BALASP. Lists of winning streaks should be in separate list articles by sport and linked from a list of lists page.

JoelleJay (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can discuss at the article's talk. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article significantly overhauled. Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for me to have a stronger keep opinion now? Conyo14 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overhauled? You mean decimated with good faith edits. This relisted RfD, which should have been kept long ago, includes the 'Keep' comments added when this was a full article, and that is what has been judged in this RfD and not the "new" truncated version. Unless the Keep editors object this should be reverted back to the version that people here actually commented on. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Randy, but I'm still a strong keep. Conyo14 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the !keep votes indicate that work, including delistifying needed doing. It is not uncommon (and should definitely not be discouraged) for articles to be improved in the process of an AfD. A closer takes comments and the status of the article at the time of closing into account, so unless you think there is a majority !keep argument that the article as it was should be kept as it was, it would surely be counterproductive to not only suggest but actually try to enforce that articles at AfD shouldn't be improved after people have !voted. The fact it has been significantly changed has been noted here. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the list addresses many "Delete" editors' concerns. The list is still visible in page history should anyone wish to retrieve it and fashion something more appropriate from it, likely best suited in a different article. The question now can solely concern whether we are dealing with WP:DICDEF or not. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page, with the list included, is what editors were commenting Keep about. Should be reverted to that version. Without the list the page means little. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of what appears to be only two editors who indicated that you think the article should have an extensive list, and therefore you are involved. Your reversion to the pre-AfD version, besides reflecting basically just your own personal preference, is also setting that dangerous precedent I mentioned of discouraging improvement during the course of AfDs. I strongly suggest you self-revert based on the principles of being involved (that a user with an interest should not be unilaterally taking decisions favouring that interest). Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the list(s) have largely been moved to draft articles - or already existed at sport-specific records pages - and I had already started a discussion topic on the merits of standalone lists or not for them all at the winning streak article talk page. Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the core concept is a very notable term in sports. There should be more than enough sources to make an encyclopedia article. The list is unverifed and needs to go. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that there were 53 redirects pointing to this article which is an incredibly high number for an article that is this specific. I'm not sure if this is the case with other related articles in this subject area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes in Meitei culture[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that mythology about eyes, folktales about eyes, symbols of eyes, etc. are parts of culture related to eyes, in accordance to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. There are citations and sources which provide enough information about Meitei folktale on eye, Meitei mythology on eye, Meitei perspective on eye, etc. --Haoreima (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have created a bunch of such articles, could you explain if you think Wikipedia merits an article X in Meitei culture for every body part X? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create articles on everything, or every body parts. I create on the facts supported by sources! Haoreima (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked though. Could you answer the question which was asked? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully investigated the article, but I would agree with this statement. So leaning keep. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should actually read the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTHESIS. It covers random DYK facts - words with the word mit (eye) in it, eyes of deities, python eye amulets, evil eye, carving Hindu deities' icon's eyes (which is not uniquely Meitei, rather pan-Hindu thing), eyes of dolls, eye actions in a dance form. The section "Divine eyes" is pure SYTH; going through the references; the references are about the deities with 1000 eyes; however the books devote a line or 2 about the eyes in paras about deity overall. There is explicit reference "all-seeing eye".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, delete per WP:SYNTH. It was really interesting to read the article, but we need evidence of sources in which the role of eyes in Meiti culture is discussed across the various examples presented in the article. The editor(s) who contributed to this article should save their good work and try to get it published somewhere more appropriate, maybe as an article in a local newspaper or historical review journal. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Do we need list of every XYZ thing in Meitei culture? This has more charts than actual prose, and most are simply "here's the word in other languages" without much critical discussion of the XYZ being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meitei traditional polo and pony cultural heritage sites[edit]

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

Not a coherent list or article, but a grab-bag of vaguely connected elements. WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted, but as an addendum to my Delete vote, I would note that this is a list article, but it does not seem to satisfy the notability requirements for lists (WP:SAL).

Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to place any subsequent comments, indented, right below your first comment. That way, your albeit signed and attributed second post doesn't look like more than one person ivoting to casual readers who skim too quickly. (Move this response of mine with it.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how the list claims that a field which does not exist yet is a part of "cultural heritage". Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are removed. Thus, the issue that you have noticed is solved. :-) Haoreima (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article isn't merely a grab bag of anything. It has multiple sources cited for each piece of information provided, in both English as well as Indian languages. --Haoreima (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: As the nominator mentioned, the issue of being Not a coherent list or article, cannot be justified. Because,

1. the reference this link specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing.
2. This source mentions the historic Mapal Kangjeibung (Pologround).
3. This source mentions a Statue of Polo Players sitting to preserve the culture.

This list might go on. Each of the sources justify the mention of Polo, Pony, Manipuri (or Meitei) Culture and History. Even, some might argue, modern Polo on Pony was invented in the state of Manipur. So, I don't see any non-coherent or vague compilation of list. As per Brusquedandelion, the list does not fulfill WP:SAL. In that specific policy, it is mentioned that, the all of the entries in a list not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but it seems, in this list, all the entries are notable as independent article as well as have the same connection of being about Polo, Pony, Manipuri Culture. Therefore, I strongly Disagree with the nominator and vote to Keep Nokib Sarkar ^Poke 07:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some articles specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing really has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. There is already an article on Sagol Kāngjei and that is not the article that is being discussed for deletion here. It is almost a given that any sufficiently long reliable source that discusses this sport will also discuss at least one instance when the sport is played, and in doing so mention one or perhaps several locations where this has happened. But this is not the same as discussing a list of places where the sport is played as a conjunct. You note that the WP:NLIST says all of the entries in a list [do] not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but this was never under dispute with respect to this article and isn't the cruz of my point. Nevertheless, since you seem to believe all the entries are notable as independent article I would strongly rebut this claim. A single mention of a game on a random website is generally not considered to be WP:SIGCOV by Wikipedians who curate and edit sports pages. But this is besides the point: we are not discussing whether each of these events should have a Wikipedia page, we are discussing whether a list of them warrants a Wikipedia page, and for the reasons I have already stated, per WP:NLIST guidelines, they clearly do not. Mentioning other random facts from WP:NLIST that aren't actually relevant here makes me wonder whether you are being intentionally obtuse to confuse the discourse by raising unnecessary and irrelevant issues and thereby impede the consensus-forming process. If that is not the case, I invite you to please consider the points being made rather than posting a kneejerk reaction just because of some sentimental value you have for this article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to another article. This article sort of meets WP:NLIST as a somewhat coherent list of properly referenced items. I'd vote to keep if I had to but I think merging is preferable. Two potential targets are Meitei culture or Sagol kāngjei#Some important sites. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another random collection of facts strung together, a tomb and a polo complex are very different things. I don't see the need for this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and failure of WP:SAL. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Mars[edit]

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

Reception/Legacy sources that was cited were trivial and wasn't talking about the character like the The New York Times, its all about the television show. WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show, sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glamour, ScreenRant, Bustle, The Atlantic, EW. There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP, which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN, so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show: Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. ✗plicit 06:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Dell'Anno[edit]

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

This person may have won the twelfth series, but I wonder whether it suffices to help keep the standalone article. His academic career hasn't made an impact, and I doubt writing cookbooks (two so far) and guest appearances make him notable outside his win. Should be redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about either WP:PAGEDECIDE or WP:BIO1E? George Ho (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Food and drink, Television, and Italy. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno per nom: The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.. I see [55] [56] [57] some follow-up coverage, but probably not enough to show persistence. Broc (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This was one of the better seasons, with lots of interesting contestants, but BIO1E applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reasons stated above. nf utvol (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Index of underwater divers[edit]

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

Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply as the index is a list of actual Wikipedia articles about people who are notable for some aspect of their diving activities, not just any notable people who happen to be occasional divers. It is an index, which is an easy way to find an article by alphabetical listing, not a category tree, which is an appalling way to find an article alphabetically, due to subcategories, which break the alphabetical listing up, and Wikipedia categories are full of inappropriate categorisations, making them even more ineffective. Categories have their functions, but they are not the only accepted method. Indexes are an broadly accepted navigation tool on Wkipedia, and have been so for a long time. They are not to be deprecated at the whim of a small group without first going to the community with an appropriate RfC. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I notice that WP:WikiProject Indexes has not been notified. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to notify them, but there isn't an easy deletion sorting for them, which is the way I've notified all the other places. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not look like a very good reason to fail to notify them, There are tags on the talk page for interested and affected projects. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nomination is invalid. Lists of articles are not directories, otherwise, we would not have categories, lists, outlines, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. Nominator has also based deletion on the grounds that the page is a list. Lists (including indexes) are an acceptable article type. Redundancy between navigation pages is also acceptable, and is covered in WP:CLN, while the acceptability of distinct page types on the same subject is covered in WP:DIFFFORKS. Aside from the erroneous policy citation, nominator has based his deletion argument on his own opinion ("Don't need"), rather than on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article in question was developed in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please speedy close this invalid deletion discussion. — The Transhumanist 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does its existence benefit readers? It's an overly long index that duplicates better ways of storing this information. Not speedy keep eligible, as the nomination is valid even if you disagree with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the explanation of how it is "overly long", then you might consider comparing its length with an index from a print encyclopedia, even quite a small one. There are no other ways that the information in it is stored that are reasonably accessible, as you would notice if you compare what all is available on Wikipedia with what is in this index. I know this because it was not easy, and a lot of work to compile. If you can show me these other ways and they actually provide the same information, without requiring a complicated database search, I would be delighted to know. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't need its own index, is better supported as a series of categories. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you claim it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Please be specific if you wish to be taken seriously by the closer. Also explain how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is applicable in this case. The rest of your opinions have been rebutted above. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to List of underwater divers Geysirhead (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list of underwater divers, it is an actual index to underwater divers notable for being underwater divers and having a Wikipedia article. There are many articles on people who also happen to be underwater divers, but are not notable for that, and are listed in the category tree, that do not belong in this index. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should mention that there are literally millions of underwater divers, a very small part of whom are ever likely to have a Wikipedia article, and an even smaller number who are likely to ever be notable for their diving activities or experiences. The current scope of the index is relatively tiny in comparison with the scope of this proposal, which would actually be relatively well represented by categories. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so. Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how WP:NLIST applies would be relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the presence or absence of annotation have any bearing on whether the article should be kept or not? General guidance for lists, which includes indexes, is that appropriate annotation is desirable. In this case it is automatic through the ((Annotated link)) templates · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the notability of an index list of notable divers, the exact criteria for inclusion in our index is obviously subject to consensus in the usual way. (Make your proposals on the talk page, and we can take it from there). There are organisations such as International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame and Women Divers Hall of Fame dedicated to honouring notable divers within their scopes, which do not necessarily coincide with our criteria, which currently also include divers notable for other things, like involvement in notable accidents, setting world records, performing notable rescues, discovering or salvaging notable shipwrecks, starting notable diving related organisations etc, inventing notable equipment or procedures, and generally being sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia, as well as being notable in connection with underwater diving. We can make our scope narrower and more precise if someone can produce an appropriate set of criteria which are both rational and within policy and guidance. It is likely that this will become necessary over time, but it does not seem to be urgent at present. The Transhumanist, you might wish to expand on this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, that an index is constrained far beyond a regular list, which could contain a far wider variety of entries, which are not inherently required to meet WP notability constraints in the way that an index, which links to existing articles that have already been shown to be notable, does. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems a perfectly reasonable navigational list; not every reader understands or is aware of categories, and the level of annotation is also very reasonable. No problem with moving to "List" instead of "Index" if preferred. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with comment just above. Bduke (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge to the premise The nominator, Joseph2302, claims Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. I suggest that this is simply wrong, and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a "comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers" or even a non-comprehensive list of "notable underwater divers" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers, (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor. I challenge them to demonstrate their claim. If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petia (singer)[edit]

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

Purely promotional BLP. Not a single thing is properly verified. None of the things in it will make her automatically notable--a few TV appearances, a photo shoot or two--and I cannot find the coverage in Google News or Books that would prove notability by our standards. Note that the creator is blocked for a user name problem, and has an obvious conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless she plays in a brass band [58], there is no coverage for this particular entertainer. Delete for a lack of sourcing, long way off to get to GNG. Prior AfD (see below) was kept, with a Billboard article, but it's a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note there appears to have been a prior AfD in 2013 for this person, but I have doubts if it's the same individual based on the comments made there... See the article's talk page for the link. It's been tagged since 2010; if nothing has popped up in the 14 years since then, likely we won't find much else. Happy to be proven wrong, as always. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if she had a hit in her country with "Obscenely Delicious" and it got to no. 5 in the Top 100 then that leans towards notable. And according to the page, it nibbled the Greek Top 50. I think the Wikipedia article is mostly correct. However, it seems that she had a brief run of fame prior to 2010. That would make her notable. So the article should be improved with referencing. It needs work!!! What makes it difficult is getting chart stats from East European countries. Karl Twist (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/keep Hi, landed here in search of a song details 2 days ago, since edited Wikipedia in the past I thought I can help. So, I edited the page and added sources from BG language. I also think that her work is past internet and its true that we can't find online for people who were notable at that time. She is on the covers and shows plus on top charts as said above by another user, the page also exists in multiple languages. Oh, and I removed all promotional sentences and words. Thanks FemaleStuff (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not an area of expertise of mine, but @FemaleStuff seems to be familiar with the topic and has convincing arguments. Just because someone is not so notable in the Anglosphere doesn't mean they may not be notable in another country/language. Vontheri (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's the lack of coverage we're concerned about. I couldn't find any and they didn't post any further sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgarian version of the article lists five sources. Sources don't have to be in English, nor do they have to be from the internet. Difficulty in finding sources [in English and online] should not make us default to "they must not exist." The article isn't really causing any harm by being there until it can either be properly sourced or proven to not be notable, is it? Vontheri (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her personal website, an IMDB profile, two profiles and a tv show, none of these are useful. Rest are social media links. Again, there are no stories in media that extensively cover this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's been added such as the dnes.bg articles are barely a few paragraphs each, I wouldn't consider them extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FemaleStuff, who seems familiar with the topic of the article, said that most of her work was pre-internet or at least early days of the internet, so looking on the modern English-language internet for information about her is a bit like looking for a tropical rainforest in Antarctica. You're looking in the wrong place.

What harm could possibly be caused by leaving the article to give someone with access to the relevant information time to find it and add it? Someone who speaks Bulgarian would probably be the best sort of person to help with this, perhaps first by writing more from Bulgarian language sources on the Bulgarian version of the article and then translating it to the English version of the article. Vontheri (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you would want to send it to draft then, that's really what should be done. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @Oaktree b, you mentioned earlier that you weren't sure that the original AFD was in regards to the same person as the current article is about. Is this AFD what you were referring to? It sounds like it's about the same person to me, but do you mind if I ask specifically what makes you think it may be someone else with the same or similar name? Vontheri (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petia_Pavlova lists quite a few sources. Were these evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked in depth at the sources from the previous AFD. Thanks for pointing our attention to them, Liz. The sources listed by @Michig from the previous AFD strengthen my view that the article should NOT be deleted.

While I am only able to read it by machine translation, this source mentions that one of her songs was in the "top 50" of MAD TV (TV channel), which sounds like it meets the criteria "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and probably also "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" from WP:MN. I hope no offense to anyone, but some people seem so hasty to delete articles... I like saving articles. Vontheri (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fafe shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. A shooting with no fatalities (and many on WP not me believe number dead is an indicator of notability). LibStar (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything WP:INDEPTH or WP:LASTING coverage for it, including for legal processes. Everything seems to have been from the days or a few days after. Shaws username . talk . 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting coverage, which I would argue (alongside national/international coverage) is the important thing to establish notability for mass shootings. Lettlre (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Parwan#Prelude. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Waliyan[edit]

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

This battle does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.

The relevant sources (e.g. Barthold 1968 and Sverdrup 2017) only discuss it as a minor skirmish in the lead up to the Battle of Parwan, and describe it in three sentences or less. This is reflected in the weighting of the article, the vast majority of which is dedicated to "Background" and only two sentences to the actual battle. Additionally, as noted on the talk page, the source which states that this battle resulted in uprisings can be clearly seen to misread his source. Further justifications for keeping the article on the talk page were largely original research or WP:ILIKEIT.

Bringing this here as a previous WP:BLAR to Battle of Parwan#Prelude was reverted. I still think a redirect there is the best course of action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is confused about the sources, here are the ones relevant to the battle:
- Barthold 1968 pp.441–2: "From [Parwan] [Jalal al-Din] first of all defeated a Mongol force which was besieging the fortress of Waliyan (or Walishtan) in Tukharistan. The Mongols lost 1,000 men killed, crossed the river (probably the Panjshir) and destroyed the bridge; by this means they delayed their enemies long enough to enable them to return swiftly to Chingiz-Khan." There follow 17 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.
- Sverdrup 2017: "Mongol officers Taqacaq and Mulgar attempted to take Waliyan. Jalal al-Din moved to Parwan; making a quick move across the mountains to the north, he surprised and routed the Mongols at Waliyan, inflicting a reported 1,000 loss on them. The Mongols retreated across a river, and destroyed a bridge to keep the enemy from following (spring 1221). Jalal al-Din had left his baggage at Parwan and returned there." There follow 20 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.
And those relevant to the alleged uprisings:
- Jacobs 2012 p. 132: "Jelal ad-Din (1207–1273) had organized an army at this time and even beaten a Mongol army at Waliyan (Barthold, 441–2). In several other towns the citizens took heart at this victory and rebelled, slaying their Mongol governors (op. cit., 442)."
- Here Jacobs, a non-specialist historian, makes two errors which shows his lack of familiarity with the material: 1) he gets Jelal ad-Din's dates entirely wrong (he actually lived c. 1995–1233), and 2) he misunderstands Barthold, who clearly states that the rebellions were the result of the Battle of Parwan. This clearly shows that Jacobs is not a reliable source.
What the article currently says on the battle: "From there, he went first to Waliyan, which was under siege by the Mongols, defeated their two armies under the leaderships of Tekejik and Molger, and lifted the siege of Waliyan, with about 1,000 Mongol casualties. The Mongols fled by crossing a river, probably the Panjshir River, and destroyed the bridge behind them. The victory of Waliyan motivated other cities to rebel against the Mongols, and to slain their Mongol Governors." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously no copyright rules have been violated here as far as I am aware, but see also what Earwig's Copyvio Detector says when comparing this article to the Battle of Parwan, it's indeed mostly copied from that article; [59]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a redirect to Battle of Parwan#Prelude might also work HistoryofIran? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would work too. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Sources are few and laconic, but this is clearly more than a "skirmish" since as many as 1000 Mongols soldiers are said to have been lost... The timing too seems fairly remote from the Battle of Parwan, as Waliyan occured in spring, whereas Parwan was in autumn. Parwan was actually motivated by the humiliation of Waliyan, which incited Genghis Khan to mobilize a large amount of troops for retribution, so Waliyan was not an insignificant encounter in his mind either: it was a significant and humiliating defeat which deserved a strong response. The location too is fairly distant. Actually, I started this article because the Battle of Waliyan is illustrated in ancient sources (), whereas Parwan is not, and I was wondering what this was refering to. We can trim the article by reducing the background if necessary, but I don't see how the encyclopedia would benefit by deleting it: we're better off by having a map, a description of the encounter, the historical illustration of it, and a summary of what sources have to say about it... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to address how you feel the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly satisfied with notability given that the battle is significant and mentioned in several reliable sources. Its only shortcoming is that not too many details are known about the battle, but shortish articles are also acceptable on Wikipedia. In addition, a map helps understand the dynamic of this encounter, and the depiction of the battle (

) is quite famous. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A map" the map shows half the world, the only detail being a red dot in what seems to be northern present-day Afghanistan. Moreover, how is that depiction "quite famous"? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. The sourcing is much too thin for a standalone article. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been suggested above by the user पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra). I commend his points and though the article may qualify for deletion due to coming short of WP:Notability, this battle is kinda exception as had great importance in medieval sources rather than contemporary modern scholarship. --88.230.179.76 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — 88.230.179.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- So just to clarify, the article fails the notability guidelines but because it was described in one (1) medieval chronicle, it's worthy of a Wikipedia article? Not sure of that logic, personally. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groove Collective. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Rodríguez Sierra[edit]

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL here. Current sourcing is just the person's music profiles. There is one article referenced, but I believe it is a non-WP:RELIABLE WordPress blog. TLA (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. We are gathering the original sources (record labels etc) and updating the references. Lilihousemusic (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking about when you say "we"? Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We are Esteban and Aurelie, we created Jay's page.

Best Lilihousemusic (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilihousemusic, it is against Wikipedia policy to share accounts. Do you have an affiliation with the subject? Were you paid by him to create the article? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They do have a Grammy nomination which supports WP:MUSICBIO and a SMH article. The possible violation and COI isn't great, but I think I may withdraw this in a few days after seeing some comments from other editors. I would like to see better sourcing incorporated though and the necessary cleanup take place, though. TLA^tlak 07:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Delete argument based on current state of the article - WP:NOTCLEANUP. Grammy nom and sources turned up so far appear to establish notability. Here's one more for good measure. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Groove Collective: Per WP:BANDMEMBER. The Grammy nom is for a Groove Collective album and not seeing anything that establishes individual notability. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the title should be changed to Jay Rodriguez (musician) as that his is WP:COMMONNAME per sources. Jay Rodriguez already exists about a footballer. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groove Collective. Grammy would establish notability, but less so for a Grammy-nomination where he hasn't yet received the actual award. GuardianH (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia[edit]

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

This article shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG: no sources in the article or available elsewhere provide reliable, independent, significant coverage of "The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any reason for it's AFD. Seems historic and pases WP: PLACEOUTCOMES and generally, WP:NGEO. There are sources but as per WP: BEFORE seems notable and historic. Otuọcha (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Otuocha, which sources allow you to make that conclusion? Whether it "seems" notable is irrelevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Otuọcha, fix ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neighborhood. LadyofShalott 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reply, it is a notable neighborhood, property and homes owned by people from California to Florida. A safe place to live in the mountains. Gamountainhiker (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has some problems (e.g., in-line link: "owners website members.sharp-mountain.com" which is a members-only link that is not available to Wikipedians in general), but on the whole, it is unremarkable from an encyclopedia standpoint. While the community is one of the most notable in its region, it may not rise to sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. ⁃ Firewall 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable in it's region. James.folsom (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The owners website was removed for reason noted. This page has been there for years, used by many people. Gamountainhiker (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically advertising that needs to be deleted.James.folsom (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is linked to wrong issue of the magazine. James.folsom (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The offending reference was removed, could not find where the original creator found it.

The preserve is a popular place to live as North Ga., it has become recognized as far away as California. Gamountainhiker (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I grew up in North Georgia, and I hadn't ever heard of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it is not advertising, as some one that lives in the Preserve, it is a growing community, over 20 homes under construction at this time. I removed the offending link not available without a userid and pw. This area of North Ga is growing as a good place to live. Gamountainhiker (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, In a time of people moving for crime ridden cities, the North Ga mountains offers a huge advantage, this article has had a high hit rate since it was posted. It offers a different view of life as opposed to high density areas! ""The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia - Wikipedia" Gamountainhiker (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) — Gamountainhiker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete it's not a neighborhood, it's a planned community. Significant portions read like the real estate listings they're also a part of. They're great for that, not an encyclopedia article. I can't find sourcing on which to build a neutral article as coverage only exists to sell it. Star Mississippi 15:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide multiple references to reliable sources completely independent of The Preserve at Sharp Mountain that devote significant coverage to this development. This is not a neutrally written, properly referenced encyclopedia article. Real estate marketing brochures are not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richert Vogt von Koch[edit]

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

No sources in article, only good source on svwiki is a short mention in Nordisk Familjebok in connection to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for flagging this. I've now inserted a bibliography of this individual's novels and other selected publications. It seems notable that several of these work are available online via Gothenburg University (https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/57909). Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing in the article is, as AlexandraAVX points out, admittedly weak. The English article just points to the Swedish article, where the sourcing isn't as extensive as the English note claims. But there are other good sources easily accessible, and with this biography in Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok and this biography in Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon, we have multiple sources (more extensive than in Nordisk Familjebok) and good proof that he was a person who was repeatedly considered notable enough to be included in various encyclopedic works. /Julle (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Julle for flagging these encyclopedia entries, which have now been added as citations in this wiki page. Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising these issues. The wikipage for Niels Fabian Helge von Koch (the mathematician who formulated the Koch snowflake) has had a longstanding red link for his father Richart Vogt von Koch, so I added content to that empty wikipage using information from the corresponding Swedish page (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richert_Vogt_von_Koch). BTW, the editors of the Swedish wiki pages didn't raised any concern that this individual is sufficiently noteworthy as a Swedish historical figure; indeed, the Swedish wikipage includes citations of a number of novels and other publications authored by this individual. Should those novels be listed on the English wikipage? Does it matter whether any of those works have been translated into English? More generally, is it possible for a Swedish historical figure to merit a Swedish wikipage but not an English-language wikipage? BTW, I have 100+ edits but not the 500-edit threshold required to use the Wiki Translate Tool (which would automatically convert all of the bibliography entries and references from the Swedish wikipage to the English wikipage). Could either of you recreate this wikipage using that Translate Tool, and then I'll be glad to help ensure that the translation is comprehensible? Again, many thanks!! Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each language version of Wikipedia decides its own policies and guidelines, so, in principle, it is possible to qualify for a Swedish page but not an English one. As far as the English criteria go it doesn't make any difference whether works have been translated into English, and sources can be in any language. I have not looked at this particular case, except to say that his son is ultra-notable, as anyone who has made even a cursory study of fractals will tell you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring Swedish Wikipedia, I'd argue Richert Vogt von Koch passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Julle above. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since now. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yggdrasil (network)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage, while others do not mention it at all. — Moriwen (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage: then e.g. tag it as Stub or Expert Needed (Category:Computer_networking_articles_needing_expert_attention for example). It was the very first version. I was looking for an article about that project and only found one in the ru wikipedia. Then I spent my weekend writing an initial English version of it...

I still don't see how alternatives to deletion have been considered so far tbh.

while others do not mention it at all: Do you mean the sources for references to information from standards or related topics that I compared it with? Ofc. Yggdrasil won't be mentioned in a standard for something else that I just happened to compare it with for explaining what it is. Agowa (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; not enough GNG passable sources (RSes) or SIGCOV. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Found this one decent source that can be a step towards passing GNG, but not enough on its own. popodameron ⁠talk 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gryzelda Konstancja Wiśniowiecka[edit]

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

REDIRECT to husband Jeremi Wiśniowiecki's article. Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nom who failed to do WP:BEFORE and whose nomination is just a WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE assertion. The subject is notable, by the virtue of, among others, being a subject of a dedicated biography in Polish Biographical Dictionary, which is even linked from our article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, by the way, her article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (translated into English) seems to be mostly about (not particularly interesting) palace intrigues/tensions. Nirva20 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates nothing about subject but whose daughter, wife, and mother she was. Obviously, I can read the tea leaves on the way this is headed but I stand by redirect proposal based on the article as it is written not how it could be written. Nirva20 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand article to tell us abou the portrait, from the sources shown which don't seem to convey much. PamD 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per Piotrus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO. And Polish version of the article is lengthy. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, per everything that was said Marcelus (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Nobody (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fall into WP:ANYBIO. I'm glad that Piotrus gave a speedy keep vote, even though Piotrus rarely votes to keep in AfD discussions. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baku#Museums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absheron Museum of History and Local Studies[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the sourcing in the interwiki links isn't sufficient, add a mention and redirect to Baku#Museums which lists the city's other museums. Star Mississippi 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced summary to Baku#Museums. Found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources develop, the history will be here, if someone finds WP:THREE, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per the lack of coverage in secondary sources. There are also some formatting errors in the article; I wonder if it might be better draftified but the subject itself doesn't seem to be independently notable. GuardianH (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Joubert[edit]

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

Subject does not fulfill notability criteria, I could not find any sources. The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won. However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South Africa. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Afrikaans article at af:Gideon Joubert has several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I don't think "the page has references" is a valid statement for AfD. Are they reliable independent sources? Three of them are obituaries (one of them can be found online here, one is a link to the publisher's website, two are reviews of his book (which, as mentioned, might be notable). The last reference is sufficiently non-descriptive to make it impossible to be found "Alberts, Louw. Insig, April 1998". Broc (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Edit of the hat note can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Dostál[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; no significant coverage or medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is unsourced and very short, which would help copy over English article otherwise. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. Given this man's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider changing the hatnote at Karel Dostal to point to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics. This bobsledder has zero notability unfortunately. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per reasons in nom. Better redirect than delete just like in the previous similar cases. FromCzech (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree because the actor is what people expect to find. Shouldn't he be located at this title, with the diacritic? Geschichte (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actor Karel Dostal is without diacritics. Two different names. FromCzech (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brzozowo, Sokółka County. There are some good arguments for deletion here, but redirection as an ATD wasn't soundly refuted. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brzozowo-Kolonia[edit]

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, included in TERYT and OSM as a separate unit, but is actually a sub-unit of Brzozowo per GUS and Geoportal. I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOLAND only raises a presumption of notability for legal recognised populated places, not individual buildings (these fall under WP:NBUILDING) or individual farms (those fall under WP:NCORP). The location given in the article is simply that of Brzozowo. There is no evidence here that this is anything but a farm in Brzozowo. Even if it were to be shown to be more than just a farm, the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND is rebutable by showing that the place likely is not and never has been notable, and searching shows this to be the case - nothing exists describing this place. Additionally WP:NOPAGE is clear that there is no need for this page even if some kind of coverage could be found - it would simply be redirected to Brzozowo.

This article is one of tens of thousands created by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski. There was no checking at all of the data before the article was created. Many, many of these articles have the wrong name, wrong location, and wrong location-type in them. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Colony/kolonia". Weird. @Stok @Malarz pl _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar as Czarnorzeczka. Brzozowo-Kolonia is standalone kolonia (one of polish types of localities, usually smaller then village), listed in SIMC database, PRNG database and Dziennik Ustaw (Polish Journal of Laws). So it's a "legal recognised populated place" as described in WP:GEOLAND. Malarz pl (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) A Kolonia is not a "standalone" community but an extension of another community (in this case, very obviously of Brzozowo as indicated by the name). It is also not a village, since that would be a wies.

2) The location given in this article is that of Brzozowo, not any other place. Whilst an empty field some distance from Brzozowo is labelled "Brzozowo-Kolonia" in GMaps, the farms around this location all have postal addresses in Brzozowo. Where is Brzozowo-Kolonia? Who lives there?

3) "Legal recognition" is not simply being listed on a database. It requires some empowerment, some status, being conferred on the populated place.

4) If the place is populated, then what is its population? And if the Polish census does not collect population data for it, then isn't this a rather strong indicator that it isn't notable?

5) GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, it does not give automatic and unchallengeable notability. In this case the presumption can be rebutted just by pointing out that its very name indicates that it is an extension of another community.

5) Even if GEOLAND is passed, WP:NOPAGE is clear about what to do with a locality about which we have essentially nothing to write - we would simply redirect it to Brzozowo. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County ~~Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka,~~ as an AtD. It's the name of a solectwo (a ward and/or a legally recognised settlement) with council representation and councillors per this list, so people live there:[60]. Rupples (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Another possible redirect is to Brzozowo, Sokółka County, the neighbouring settlement, which is also listed as a solectwo. Brzozowo, Sokółka County gives population figures. If they include Brzozowo-Kolonia this may make for a better target, but do they? Rupples (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples Yes, the population figures of Brzozowo contain the kolonia as well, I just need to correct the presentation of this on Brzozowo's page. Because of how the census areas work (as mentioned in the Czarnorzeczka discussion), it may be best to create a templated footnote. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm seeing this as a rural hinterland to the village of Brzozowo, although the village itself is rural. Better the two articles are tied together. Rupples (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still side with deletion as a more simple solution - I don't particularly buy WP:CHEAP in this case since for a mass-creation problem it turns out to be anything but cheap to redirect hundreds/thousands of articles rather than deleting them which is far more straight-forward. Kotbot created tens of thousands of these articles without any checking whatsoever, it is misguided to think the solution to that is to redirect them one-by-one when that would take decades to complete.

However, like I said in my original !vote, if a redirect is warranted, it should be to Brzozowo, Sokółka County which it is straight-forwardly an extension of according to its name. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, do you know for certain that the editor running Kotbot made no after creation checks? Didn't the bot have to go through an approval process? Rupples (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples - As far as I can tell there were no checks. The entire thing was premised on the idea that the PL Wiki articles used as a source for the data in them were already correct. As far as the approvals process went, it did not appear to involve any actual checking of the articles, merely people vouching for the bot.

Realistically speaking, the articles were created at such a rate that no-one could have been checking more than a tiny fraction of them. In a 48-hour period centred around the creation-time of the article we're discussing here (18:43, 31 July 2008) Kotbot created more than 5,000 articles, does anyone really think Kotniski was checking these? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I think it makes most sense to delete this as it is legally distinct from Brzozowo, Sokółka County despite the name. A redirect could cause confusion. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilawa-Kataka you should strike the above !vote because as nominator your !vote is already counted as delete, so this is in effect a second !vote. How does the redirect cause confusion? Surely, now it's been ascertained that the official population figure is the total for Brzozowo, Sokółka County and Brzozowo-Kolonia combined it makes sense to combine the two articles and put a note in the Brzozowo, Sokółka County article explaining that neighbouring Brzozowo-Kolonia is also recognised as a sołectwo and its population is included in the figures shown. Rupples (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples Neither significant nor likely confusion, admittedly, but it is possible it could lead someone to believe they were legally the same entity (rather than just in the same census area). Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County, per the usual 'part of the village' logic. I do oppose deletion, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakawi News[edit]

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

No credible claim of notability. Only 3 sources. First reference does not mention Hakawi News, 2 and 3 are Wordpress pages on the official website. WP:Before shows zero independent coverage, although both Commons and Wikiquote are also being targeted with articles promoting Hakawi News and its editor, who has "apparently" won not only the French Legion of Honor but also a 2023 Academy Award. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. also zero independent coverage, failed in WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a fairly large cross-projects hoax. Blocks and salting to taste. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly not a notable entity. Cross-wiki spam, hoax, and/or exaggeration. Marbletan (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added and are being supplemented Follow the page،Hakawi News. (Ahmed brens (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Most sources being added are about the Hakawi International Festival for Children’s Arts, run by Cairo's AFCA Arts Center. It has zero connection aside from its name with the Wordpress website Hakawi News. The Hakawi Jazz Festival, organized by the Library of Alexandria, also has no connection to Hakawi News. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe salt given the multiple users involved in this spam operation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it is apparent this is a cross-wiki abuse, Hakawi News doesn't appear to pass any notability guidelines. Neither general nor subjective. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. DrowssapSMM 15:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kapsaon[edit]

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

No citations found in 2019 Kenya census or in any Kenyan media. Not mapped. Additionally, whilst "Kab-" is a prefix denoting place, "Kap-" is not a Kalenjin prefix, and its various words for for "loud" and "sound" do not pertain. kencf0618 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. kencf0618 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot verify this place even exists. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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