< January 02	January 04 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrej Babić[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence of notability for this musician. Google search results mostly come up with blogs and social media, but nothing clear that he meets WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I'm not a native speaker of Croatian either, so I don't know if there are news sources available in said language. Corresponding articles in other languages do not have good sourced information to copy over English Wikipedia (I checked and translated them). No reliable news have been released on him since his last-known activities in 2015 as well. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Europe, and Croatia. Skynxnex (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Gonna go with delete on this for a myriad of reasons. See WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG, there is a significant lack of coverage of information on this singer, with their own page having weak citations. General subject (the singer), also lacks notability. Noorullah (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines, hits on google apparently brought up mentions, nothing significant or in depth. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 14:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I found one coverage here but don't think it's reliable. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many "keep" votes are based on Bengal as a region having a coherent heritage - which isn't in question - rather than whether World Heritage sites specifically, in this region, are treated as a group by reliable sources, which is what would make this a viable topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The World Heritage of Bengal[edit]

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

List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India already exist. This list is just a grouping of the sites in West Bengal and Bangladesh (previously known as East Bengal). The sources are for the individual sites and none mention the list as a whole. Recommend converting this into a disambiguation page. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above articles only list World Heritage Sites. But, the Bengal region has both cultural and world heritage. As the region is linked by language, culture and emotion (see Bengal article), there may be separate articles on the heritage sites, culture of the region. And, not just a list, each topic is described in detail. This article provides a lot of rich information about the Bengal region. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. People come here to get knowledge, and knowledge is never divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: "Region of Bengal" consisting of Bangladesh and West Bengal. And this region of Bengal has a distinct identity. And the culture of this region is Bengali. And the world heritages that exist in this region can have a separate article. There is nothing wrong with that. রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I think this is quite hard. On the one hand it seems to be repeating information from other pages in a slightly different form. But on the other hand, it is clearly correct to say that Bengal - as a region - has coherence over national boundaries. In terms of sources, I'm not sure it is true to say that none cover the region as a whole - for example this paper discussed a subsection of the world heritage sites together, despite being either side of the international border. There remains the difficulty of whether this turns Wikipedia into a gazetteer, but in general for me I think there are likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole in enough detail to show it is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't think this type of synthesis article is appropriate or necessary. There aren't any other examples of combining the WH sites and [[UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists|intangible heritage in an article, nor combining regions. The citation above is about the dual WHS listing of the bordering Sundarbans and Sundarbans National Park, but this natural site being transboundary does not extend to the cultural sites that don't necessarily have that connection (and while these are two designations, there are many other multinational sites). Like, Jamdani, Mangal Shobhajatra, and 'Rickshaws and Rickshaw painting in Dhaka' all appear to be specific to Bangladesh, not Bengal in general, while 'Durga Puja in Kolkata' is specific to India – UNESCO designated that city's celebration of the festival, not the broader region's. This article does not add any information that is not already in the two lists of WHSes and intangible list/individual articles or content that ties them together at all. Also, sites are given the name "World Heritage" while the intangible heritage is not. This just doesn't come together cohesively as a notable topic. We don't need this to be an example for "The World Heritage of Korea", "The World Heritage of the British Isles", or other multinational regions that merely duplicate content elsewhere without being a particularly useful new overlay of presentation or navigation. Moreover, even if there are "likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole", that's not the same as just listing the specific heritage places and activities that are UNESCO-designated, for which we do not have such broader regional sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to your logic, there should not be an article on Akhand Bharat too? রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's a childish comment. According to my logic, there should not be an article on "The World Heritage of Akhand Bharat" or even "The World Heritage of South Asia". Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete above explanation is well detailed and convincing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I agree with Reywas92, this is purely synthesis. Although Bengal is a distinct region, it being one doesn't justify this sort of thing, and wouldn't for other cultural regions across national boundaries either. ― novov (t c) 04:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically & both has national boundaries! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Reywas92 and already covered List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal politically is not a distinct region it is divided.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bengal existed until the Partition of Bengal (1947) and similarly Punjab existed till 1947 hence they articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites located within the cultural and historical region of Bengal. The sources can be improved in the article, this is not a reason for a good article to be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I understand that Bengal is divided politically. But, political division cannot be the reason for deletion of this article. Cultural existence is never determined by political area! Authority refers to political boundaries. And, no one's authority is undermined by this article. Bengali culture is a culture of thousands of years. I am a Bengali. And, speaking as a Bengali, if this article is in Wikipedia, it will be possible for us to gain more knowledge about Bengalis. This article is full of knowledge and information. So, please correct the mistakes in the article without deleting the article. And, look at Bengali Wikipedia, there are Bengalis in both Bangladesh and India in favor of this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Delete, I find Reywas92's argument that this is OR/synthesis to be the most compelling and agree with his assessment of the article on that basis. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Giving this another week to see if a rough consensus can be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Per nom and Reywas92.The sources are for the individual sites and none mention it as Bengal. Sources refer to it as Bangladesh ,West Bengal and India and not Bengal. This is duplication of content of List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal's history comes to end after the Partition of 1947.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The history of Bengal ended in 1971, not in 1947! When Bangladesh emerged as independent Bengal. Know the history and then talk! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - ultimately this comes down to a question of OR: do reliable sources group together all of Bengal when discussing UNESCO World Heritage sites? While there are plenty of reliable sources covering the history, religion and culture of the transnational region, this is not the case for world heritage sites specifically as a category; the only source that I could find that even uses the term Bengal to discuss heritage sites this way appears to be the exception that proves the rule [1], as despite its framing it then proceeds to exclusively discuss locations in West Bengal. Consequently, this topic falls short of WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This closure should not be seen an indication that this article doesn't need further improvement. It does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapel of Sacred Mirrors[edit]

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

Many of the edits on this article come from people with close connections to its subject, including its proprietor himself, and at least one person whose flattering work is cited therein. At least half of the references are to primary sources, including to the entity's official website and to works written by its proprietor (who, again, has made several edits to the article). The citations are also complete messes in general; the ones which are linked are dead, the ones which are not linked are almost all either missing the full name of the author or the name of the work. As another editor noted in a hatnote, the article also reads like a press release. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, Religion, and New York. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - regardless of COI issues, the topic is notable. AfD is not for cleanup. Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, notable topic meets GNG per sourcing, and this is the main exhibition of a noted artist. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - nominator seems to have neglected WP:BEFORE. I've found 6 potential sources, including major coverage in The New York Times and Rolling Stone in May and June of 2023:
- Eckstein, Noah (May 23, 2023). "A Sanctuary for Psychedelic Art Opens in the Hudson Valley". The New York Times. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
- Rosenbaum, Cassady (June 30, 2023). "Pilgrims Are Flocking to This Psychedelic Temple". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
~~A portion is a copyvio so that will need to go~~. I think there's enough sourcing from which to build an article that isn't promotional spam. Star Mississippi 03:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Realizing I didn't explicitly say it, so making life easier for closer. While the article needs some work, there's enough sourcing that it should be kept. Star Mississippi 14:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done some editing on the page to address some of the promotional concerns,, although haven't edited in as yet any data from the new sources provided by Skyerise. Star Mississippi, could you highlight the exact copyright violation language so that it can be edited or reworded and credited to the book, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Randy Kryn. It's the para starting with "Along with the Sacred Mirrors series, the original chapel also displayed a number" earlier ones are a close paraphrase, but that one is copied directly. Star Mississippi 14:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Star Mississippi. The whole long paragraph or part (the paragraph also includes album cover artwork, etc.)? Apologizes, the source won't let me read the book pages. I've done some editing to the paragraph, can you check to see if it improved the copyright concern, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's good now as you've edited it. Thanks for handling @Randy Kryn Star Mississippi 15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and again thanks for pointing out the copyright violation. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the new sources found by Skyerise this seems a slam dunk, so much so that thanks have to go to Dennis C. Abrams for nominating the page and drawing attention to the Greys (Alex Grey's article and this one both need work and will be nice to read as features someday). Much like Robert Anton Wilson will eventually be known as one of the 20th century's great writers, Alex Grey will eventually be known as one of the 20th century's great artists, and Allyson Grey's reputation should grow further. It's good to see the 2023 articles (and other 21st century sources) are finally catching up with the Grey's work and its place in art and culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the New York Times sources. Toughpigs (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments. While there are two reliable sources, this technically fails my standards for historic churches. Articles about the artists whose work are featured in a holy site do not automatically convey notability on the site. So I am torn on this one. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Chapel is also the gallery for the artwork series Sacred Mirrors which redirects to this page, and it is named after the series. The chapel and series likely meet many of the criteria listed within the two essays you linked. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death of Fariz Bedelov and Aygun Shahmaliyeva[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC notability. There is essentially no coverage outside of Azerbaijani sources. There's nothing that makes these two any more significant than tens of thousands of other people who died in the conflict and don't have an article. The two deaths are also unrelated and happened several months apart. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- per nom. Archives908 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Their deaths are a tragedy but if there is no coverage outside of Azerbaijan, is it a notable enough death? --Artene50 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Stuff not receiving coverage outside of one region or language doesn't make something non-notable, plenty of articles on the wiki fall under this category. Non-English sources are just as viable as English ones per WP:RSUEC. I do however agree that the two deaths are completely unrelated, but I think it would make more sense to WP:SPLIT the article rather than simply delete it. Pladica (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pladica: It fails GNG because there are no reliable sources independent of the subject, the language of the sources not being the issue. Almost all of the citations are Azerbaijan State News Agency or the Azerbaijan government website. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Think of the children, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:LIST. Children dying in war zones tugs on the heart, but many Israeli, Palestinian, Ukrainian, and Armenian children have been killed, too, in the past two years. Having only government sources, or of government-controlled media, does not pass the significant coverage test. This is also a list of two items, failing that test. My condolences. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because of the independent coverage concerns already raised. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mariya Demidova[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Kazakhstani women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this piece, which has more images of the subject than sentences of actual coverage. There is also this interview, but not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails N. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom--Devoke water 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wadugegoda[edit]

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

A town should be notable, but I couldn't find the reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GEOLAND. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Also it is noteworthy that the town is not documented on OpenStreetMap and even if it does shown to actually be a real entity, it is most likely not a standalone settlement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notable_places. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bearian: I don't know if you can PER rationale to SNOW? Unless you are arguing for—and have the policy to back up—a CSD. AfDs are entitled to their 7 days. And you aren't citing any community census, policy, or guidelines but your own rationale? Remember that AfD's are closed based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments (at WP:NOTEARLY). microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. How about there are virtually no citations? How about a total lack of newspaper articles about it, or scholarly articles about it, or a single line in one primary source? A single gazette book line does not constitute significant coverage, which is theoretically required for every article or stub in Wikipedia. SNOW can be invoked whenever there is no hope for a nominated article, no "keep' !votes, and a good-faith search finds no relevant sources. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host of all the information in the universe. So, yes, I am arguing this is a candidate for speedy deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was to merge with Pohatcong Mountain. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎.Reply[reply]

Upper Pohatcong Mountain[edit]

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

A mountain peak should be notable, but I couldn't find the reliable sources to prove it. It has been unreferenced for a long time. Boleyn (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge / redirect to Pohatcong Mountain, as the two are described as being part of a continuous ridge. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment Topos consistently label it as a separate peak/ridge with a summit at the stated point. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge is the best option so we don't lose any information even if there's not enough here for a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solus Christi Brothers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It exists, but there is no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It is literally unsourced. I found nothing reliable on Google, news, newspapers, or books. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - it is also a wholecloth copyright violation from this site. Kazamzam (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morris Massey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Schierbecker (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:TNT. The article is spammy and almost entirely unsourced. He doesn't appear to have the citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. The McFeely Award may actually be significant, and can be sourced [2] but unless there's more to say about Massey than one line saying he received that award, we don't have enough for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Echoing David Eppstein that this is spammy, mostly promotional stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SPAM, and WP:SIGCOV. In 2011, a new editor could have been excused for creating this, but in 2024, this is untenable. Everyone today knows we are not a LinkedIn nor a free web host. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Football Tasmania. Daniel (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northern Championship[edit]

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

Unreferenced page, with no signs of notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Football Tasmania as possible search term, but does not appear to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 14:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European Financial Services Roundtable[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and it has been unreferenced for many years. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it even exists. At best, WP:SPAM. At worse, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A discussion about an article page move can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Castnia juturna[edit]

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

I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to show this meets WP:N. Has been unreferenced for many years. Boleyn (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: sources such as [3], [4] and [5] suggest this meets WP:NSPECIES. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Per @OwenX:. It's a recognized species. I'm not sure it's right, but that's how we've handled species in the past. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move - needs attention but not for the reasons stated (obviously a validly described taxon). This species appears to have been reclassified into the genus Elina, hence should be moved to Elina juturna and a redirect established at current location. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malek Mehri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

User:Mccapra nominated it for deletion per WP:CSD#G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" but that rationale was declined. So creating the AfD to complete it for them. RedPatch (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete last AfD mentioned how there was no discussion of the person in Arabic sources. I tried in French, you get some coverage from Tunisia, but it's just match reports when he played for the national team, nothing beyond name drops.Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and SALT - no changes since last AFD. Giant Snowman 14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sachin: A Hundred Hundreds Now[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK or appear notable enough to warrant an article. Of the three references listed (all dead), only one appears to be to an independent, reliable source, the other two appear to be simply reviews or links to book sellers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The book itself doesn't pass WP:GNG, even if it's about one of the biggest crickters of all time. No point redirecting to Sachin Tendulkar as it's barely mentioned at target. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK, found insufficient coverage online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, borderline WP:PROMO based on the lack of SIGCOV, especially independent SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation from first version and all subsequent versions are a derivative work (translation). Whpq (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aseguradores de la calidad[edit]

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

Procedural listing per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The spanish concept should not be a redirect: WP:FORRED. It is not even the standard spanish term, that would be Aseguramiento de la Calidad,. As for the body of the article, its nature is not encyclopedic and should be deleted as per WP:NOTHOW.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: more than likely a copyvio run through machine translation. But even if it isn't, this is OR/SYNTH that doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per my RfD vote. Jay 💬 06:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I've tagged this for G12 (copyvio) speedy deletion, since the first revision is directly copied (in Spanish) from http://profayadira.yolasite.com/resources/Roles_desarrollo_software.pdf#page=14, followed by another user's not-very-skillful translation, since which it has been rephrased a bit. SilverLocust 💬 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Rather embarrassing that this article survived for 12 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993[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

The act isn't notable, can't find sources that discuss the act itself. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It regulates a $3.5 trillion industry of Superannuation in Australia, and here are at least 1300 results on Google Scholar discussing the Act: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Superannuation+Industry+%28Supervision%29+Act+1993%22&btnG=

Hope that is useful for you, BarrySpinno (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, JSTOR, HeinOnline, the collection of journals included in AustLII, the collection of journals included in NZLII, and elsewhere. This is the Act that controls superannuation in Australia, so any book or article on superannuation discusses this Act. The Act is sometimes called the SIS Act. James500 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: There are sources that discuss the Act, but all of the ones I've looked at are purely descriptive (and thus not "significant" in their coverage) or briefly mention or cite the Act. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Keep per sources provided by James500. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) GNG does not say anything about sources being "purely descriptive". (2) The sources are not "purely descriptive". This, to pick a random example, could not be described as "purely descriptive" within any meaning those words could have. James500 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't view the source that you've linked to. It would be helpful if you could provide three sources establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) You should be able to access that source. Could there be something wrong with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) WP:THREE is a userspace essay. The reason it is in the userspace is because the policy WP:GUIDES says "Essays . . . that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace". The guideline WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". There has never been a requirement or expectation that there be more than two sources satisfying GNG, and there has never been a prohibition on four or more sources. WP:BEFORE is not satisfied by refusing to read more than three sources. (3) There are entire periodical articles that are entirely about this Act: [6]. There are well over 130 journal articles with coverage of this Act in AustLII. Some of those appear to be at least almost entirely about this Act: [7] [8]. Others are certainly largely about this Act. I could go on, but the Act obviously satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) I wasn't suggesting the source should be rejected because I couldn't read it.

(2) I'm aware THREE is a userspace essay. The reason its in the userspace is because Roy wants to control it, not because people disagree with it. The point of the essay is that three sources is usually a good number to show that something is notable. Nobody is suggesting that "WP:BEFORE is not satisfied by refusing to read more than three sources."

(3) Thank you. All you had to do was link to some sources instead of implying that I was rejecting the book you linked to and that I don't know what a userspace essay is. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Superannuation in Australia -- There is no independent notability for the act beyond the parent article. As this article currently exists, there is no sourcing, so there is nothing to merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) WP:GNG and WP:SPINOUT say nothing about "independent notability". Both the guideline and the policy say that we are allowed to have an article on a subtopic even if its entire content is within the scope of the parent topic. (2) Superannuation in Australia is a massive topic, with an enormous amount of coverage, and we are never going to be able to fit that topic into a single article without violating either WP:TOOBIG or WP:PRESERVE. (3) In any event, the coverage of the Act is "independent" of the parent in the sense that it is not merely about superannuation in Australia generally, but is specifically about the Act in particular, to the exclusion of other aspects of the topic of superannuation in Australia. Further, the coverage contains information about the Act that is not obviously relevant to the parent topic. (4) The sources address the Act directly and in detail. (5) The article is not unreferenced. The Act is a reliable primary source for its own content. (6) The Act is not the same thing as superannuation in Australia. Firstly, this Act was passed in 1993. Superannuation existed in Australia long before 1993. The entire pre-1993 history of superannuation is outside the scope of this article. Further, even today there are many aspects of superannuation that arguably have nothing to do with the Act. Superannuation is not a purely legal phenomenon. It is also an economic, business and social phenomenon etc, and these aspects often have nothing to do with the Act. What do the "List of superannuation entities by funds under management" in the parent article, or the economic and financial statistics available for superannuation, have to do with the Act? (7) Even from a purely legal perspective, this Act is not the whole law of superannuation. There are many other Australian Acts on superannuation. I count, in particular, more than thirty Commonwealth Acts presently in force that have the word "superannuation" in their short title, from the Superannuation Act 1922 to the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Act 2012. That number does not include sub-federal legislation or completely repealed legislation. It is true that these Acts are presently (but not necessarily historically before 1993) less important than the SIS Act, but they are still part of the law of superannuation. Further, there is a huge amount of case law that is not strictly part of the SIS Act either. James500 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: @James500 and BarrySpinno: Do you see yourselves expanding this article in the near-future to cover (well-cited) in-depth/technical aspects of the Act that are not currently and cannot easily be included in Superannuation in Australia#Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS) and elsewhere in that article (and possibly the addition of an External Links section)? While significant RS coverage of the Act exists in the context of the topic, WP:NOPAGE currently applies (with the possibility of later WP:SPINOUT when needed), so that would land me at Redirect otherwise. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) In answer to your question, I see myself expanding this article to cover aspects of the Act that are not currently and cannot easily be included in Superannuation in Australia. However, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and WP:IMPATIENT is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (2) WP:NOPAGE says "On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". That is clearly the case here. James500 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - it would be better expanded, hence my question. In the absence of that, it's better redirected currently given the coverage at the proposed section and elsewhere in the page. It can then be spun out at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time... To quote WP:NODEADLINE: "When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field... redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article, are better choices than deleting. // Merge is a perfectly acceptable vote in a deletion discussion". In this case there's not much to merge. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think the article could be called "very badly-written". What the passage from WP:IMPATIENT (which you misattribute to WP:NODEADLINE) actually says is "removing unverifiable content and stubbing the article . . . are better choices than deleting" and "they are excellent arguments for a merge in cases where an excessive number of subarticles exists" (my emphasis). I am unable to detect unverifiable content in this article, or an excessive number of subarticles. The article should not be merged merely because it is presently a stub, as WP:IMPATIENT actually advocates stubbing. Superannuation in Australia is missing even the most basic information about this Act, and what information it does contain is scattered through the article in a way that makes it difficult to find. James500 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those arguing to Keep and those preferring to Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that merely being an act of parliament confers notability. For example, I doubt that an act containing mere technical amendments to a wide range of already existing acts, without making any substantive changes to existing law, would be considered notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe that anyone is saying that all Acts of Parliament are inherently notable. I have said that this particular Act is notable because it satisfies the guideline WP:GNG. Topics that satisfy GNG do so because, and only because, of the coverage they have received. WP:N says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below" (my emphasis). While this particular Act is famous and important, I am not saying that fame and importance make it (or any other Act) inherently notable (though fame and importance certainly do enhance its acceptability, per the rubric of WP:N). I am saying that this particular Act has received coverage that satisfies GNG. I think that what Barry is trying to say is that an Act that "regulates a $3.5 trillion industry" is obviously going receive the sort of coverage that satisfies GNG, because it is inevitable that books and periodicals will give an enormous amount of coverage to such an Act, and that the coverage of this Act in Google Scholar (which Barry refers to in an earlier comment above) does actually satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voorts, you would be right for some Acts, many of which can be minor, but trust me this one is big, and it doesn't amend others - it's self-standing. Or don't trust me, you can see it all here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sia1993473/index.html - hope that helps. BarrySpinno (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. When I look up a specific piece of legislation, I would prefer to be directed to even a short article specific to the statute — provided it has some enactment info (in the infobox), an external link to the legislative text, and a wikilink to an article on the broader area of law — rather than just to be redirected to the general area of law. Of course, it would be better to expand this article. SilverLocust 💬 08:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal corgis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorgi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial mentions of the cross-breed, all relate to the late British Queen bar one. Information is better off being put into Royal Corgis and list of crossbreeds with the page redirecting to list of crossbreeds Traumnovelle (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Merge/redirect to Royal corgis. It's already listed in List of dog crossbreeds. Google scholar agrees: the ony thing notable about this mix is that its greatest champion was the Queen. This could easily be contained to the short paragraph. There are several published sources so I will defer to the consensus. Annwfwn (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect to Royal corgis, though that should be moved to Royal Corgis (which weirdly does not even exist as a redirect yet). Standardised breeds take capitals, per MOS:LIFE (and that includes Corgis), while non-standardised varieties, like random cross-breeds someone sticks a name on, e.g. "dorgi" and "cockapoo", do not. So "dorgi" should not be capitalised in the merged material. I've already fixed this at the erstwhile article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catherin Berni[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2009, 2013, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WUWB-LD[edit]

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:Reply[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Diginet coatracks built in the last 10 years with no SIGCOV on them or the company. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: These are the types of no-profile stations (even "low-profile" may still imply some coverage or significance) that only got articles under the more lax (interpretations of) notability standards of pre-2021. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChatGPT availability by country or region[edit]

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

Primary-sourced transcription of availability info fails WP:NOTDATABASE. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easy Delete per nom. CoconutOctopus talk 19:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It's a self-evident list that it's available everywhere except embargoed countries (and Greenland, which is wrong since Denmark covers that), and we're not ChatGPT's promotional arm. This is one short sentence at most in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as this isn't really about ChatGPT's availability, and, as Nate noted, basically just a list of embargoed countries. Possibly weak merge with the ChatGPT article with a mentioning there where the AI is not available.

Cortador (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with the main article, by explicitly stating list of countries where ChatGPT is unavailable? Leesjy2k (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sabor line. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fornos - Sabor stop[edit]

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

There are three levels of train stations in Portugal: stations, halts, and stops. The stations and halts – not withstanding the name – are more elaborate. "Fornos - Sabor stop" was a station of least importance in this hierarchy, located in the rural space, with hardly any builtup. In fact, it's our only article on a train stop in Portugal. Not sure why we carry it. If it was named correctly, I would recommend the ATD of redirecting to the Sabor line. Do not confuse Sabor with Sodor ;-) gidonb (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those who are confused about the reason to delete, adding that this is the WP:GNG and WP:NRAIL. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Portugal. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - There doesn't appear to be any reason being put forward for deleting this article. Garuda3 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The arguments provided are weak and honestly futile, given that all Sabor line stations are situated in rural spaces (except for Pocinho), the mere fact that it is the first stop with an article isn’t a valid reason for its exclusion. Wikipedia strives to be a comprehensive and inclusive repository of knowledge. Having an article on the "Fornos - Sabor stop" contributes to the diversity of topics covered on Wikipedia.

Not every station/halt/stop article needs to focus on one that is located on a large or urban-centric location; rural spaces and smaller stops also hold cultural and historical significance for local folk. Instead of trying to delete the article, consider the potential for expansion. More information, images, or historical context can be added to the article, deleting as I see it, won’t bring any benefit whatsoever. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The above keep arguments are WP:HARDWORK and WP:EVERYTHING or just do not present any useful argument to support their vote. It also should be pointed out that deletion is not loss, any deleted article can be restored to it's former glory at any time, if new information comes to light. Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that we should consider expanding the article instead of deleting it. Everyone who reads the policy knows this a prerequisite to AFD. So, the argument you make there is redundant. James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Sabor line. Clearly fails any quantifiable notability criterion, and the retention arguments are "you didn't give a deletion reason" which is patently false, and a pointless rehashing of extreme-inclusionist arguments that have been rejected by the community at large. "More information, images, or historical context can be added to the article" appears to be a fiction crafted in an attempt to prevent redirecting or deletion of this non-notable article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The assertion that the article "clearly fails any quantifiable notability criterion" may overlook the inherent challenges of capturing certain topics' significance solely through quantifiable measures. Some subjects hold cultural or local importance that might not align with conventional notability criteria but still contribute meaningfully to the broader narrative.

Regarding the claim that the retention arguments are based on a false premise of "you didn't give a deletion reason", you must recognize that discussions within the community can be complex, simply the arguments provided by the person that wants this article deleted were weak if not just ridiculous. Deleting the article outright could result in the loss of potentially valuable content, as the Sabor Line might be reopened in the near future. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spare me the word salad. You haven't refuted anything I said, only made appeals to emotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, lets accept the fact that the requestor could have been more clear. But, let's also accept that anybody that has read the notablility guidelines for train stations would know very well the reason why this was nominated. Now, the only valid claim I see in the above keep argument is about cultural importance. Are you claiming this is a culturally important subject? Because, if you are you could build a much stronger argument by simply telling us about this cultural value so that we can weigh it. Thus far, all the arguments for keep that have been provided are provided without verifiable facts. I would add that I've never seen any subject that was of important cultural value, that didn't also have easily verifiable sources as well. Maybe you could give us an example of these "inherent challenges of capturing certain topics' significance solely through quantifiable measures" so that we may be more careful in the future.James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Sabor line. I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“It stands as a modest example of Português Suave architecture, where the initial stop was dismantled to make way for the present structure, a transformation that took place in the 1940s or 1950s”

The only one still standing, Sanhoane and Mós were similar, but they are long demolished V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a piece of information; it is not notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which are not present here. Please read WP:NOTABILITY before you continue to bludgeon the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Sabor line. Notability is not based an whether a Wikipedia editor thinks a railway halt is important, but based on whether reliable secondary sources think it's worth something. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sabor line. No one has been able to find sufficient material to demonstrate nobility. The keep voters keep insisting on notability, but will not provide any evidence of this.James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the keep arguments are relatively weak, there is no delete support besides the nominator. I am not minded to relist for a third week. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lima Consensus (economy)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. There is barely independent coverage of the term, which is mainly based on one coined by José Carlos Orihuela, of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru ([9][10][11][12]. There is no evidence that it is a term widely used by academics or that such a phenomenon exists at all. So much so that most of the results actually point to another thing: the Eighth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean ([13][14][15][16][17]). Any relevant content about Peru's economy in the 90s is already covered at Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, Economics, and Peru. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article, which use the term in English and Spanish, seem to indicate a fairly obvious claim to notability. It might be better titled Lima consensus, per MOS:CAPS but otherwise looks to meet GNG and I don't think the article is particularly poorly written as these things go. — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is barely independent coverage about the term for it to meet WP:GNG, besides a few passing mentions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about behavior
The problem is that before you wanted to demonstrate all this by disrupting WP:POINT (edit war, the arbitrary moves with your intent o specify (in both Wikipedias, the Spanish version and this one, hit n run-tagging ...) — what you did makes me think badly of this. (Talk:Lima Consensus) Ultranuevo (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm sorry that you're repeating the page creator's accusations against me. If there is any pointy behavior, it's probably when they nominated my last article at the moment briefly after I started this AfD. I have already warned them several times, but I have to ask you too: don't cast aspersions. If you have anny issues about behavior, there are appropriate benues to discuss them. If you're disputing my points, you should easily be able to rebut them (and I see you already have included some references to the article, fortunately). This thread will probably be closed soon, so there's really no need to turn the tone hostile. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about behavior

The problem is that before you wanted to demonstrate all this by disrupting WP:POINT (edit war, the arbitrary moves with your intent o specify (in both Wikipedias, the Spanish version and this one, hit n run-tagging ...) — what you did makes me think badly of this. (Talk:Lima Consensus) Ultranuevo (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that you're repeating the page creator's accusations against me. If there is any pointy behavior, it's probably when they nominated my last article at the moment briefly after I started this AfD.

I have already warned them several times, but I have to ask you too: don't cast aspersions. If you have anny issues about behavior, there are appropriate benues to discuss them. If you're disputing my points, you should easily be able to rebut them (and I see you already have included some references to the article, fortunately).

This thread will probably be closed soon, so there's really no need to turn the tone hostile. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- I understand the nominator's point on the essay-like quality to the prose and I have some minor WP:SYNTH concerns, but those fall under WP:DINC. The sourcing seems (IMHO) to clear GNG based on both existing cites and a WP:BEFORE search. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Per WP:PROBLEM, WP:NOHURRY WP:PERFECTION, and WP:NOTPAPER. Ultranuevo (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bear in mind WP:TNT. Any salvageable information can be merged into the aforementioned article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also WP:UCS and Wikipedia:TOQ. Ultranuevo (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are essays on "ignoring all rules". Verifiability is still a pillar of the encyclopedia and the issue of what Wikipedia is not remains. At any rate, if you cite WP:1Q, the natural question follows: how does this article precisely improve Wikipedia? The content on the economic policies is covered at Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration and there it's debatable if such "Consensus" exists at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which source claims that is debatable whether the term Lima consensus exists? Ultranuevo (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say the term, I said the "Consensus" per se. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I don't know if I understood you, there are many sources that recognize the Lima consensus. If such consensus were not real, there would be no sources. Ultranuevo (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Per the above -- 100kb costs 0.000..............1p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Article is essay-like, but it doesn't appear to be utterly wrong or entirely redundant in the ways that would make WP:TNT useful. The mentioned Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration does not appear particularly well-developed either. Have not analyzed the sources to see if there is a significant difference between the two article topics, but a quick WP:BEFORE leads me to agree the term is at the least a plausible redirect/link from a disambiguation page. CMD (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Please can people stop moving the article while the AFD is open, as it screws up maintenance and closure scripts. Name discussions can wait until the AFD is closed (and probably should go on WP:RM as there's a lack of consensus...) Stifle (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better Than Cash Alliance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. CNMall41 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Though it may need serious revising. Google book search turns up copious references to this UN-based agency. Unfortunately, the article has been edited largely by COI accounts with a reliance on primary sources. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It not a UN based agency. I will look at the references. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the mentions turn out to be passing and lack in-depth coverage, I'll withdraw the 'keep.' Late tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait and improve it I'm not an expert on this, but from what I read about the requirements for something to be an article, it needs "significant coverage" from sources that aren't connected to the topic. The ones I see that aren't connected seem like trivial mentions. SilverhairedHarry (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- It is NOT a UN agency. Its own website even states it is "based at the United Nations" (being based there and being an agency of are two different things). Stating it is a UN-based agency is misleading in my opinion. The page states (unreferenced) that the United Nations Capital Development Fund serves as the secretariat, but I cannot locate any references supporting that claim either. I do find a few mentions in books, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I would vote for a redirect target since we can verify it exists. Of course, I would need a suggested target from others as I cannot find one. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This source claims the UNCDF established the Better Than Cash Alliance [18], and devotes a few pages to it in chapter 5. Page 109 here [19] is a source for the UNCDF providing the secretariat and offices. Its aims are referred to here [20], often skeptically. Its findings are cited throughout this publication [21], and on pages 279-80 here [22]. Also noted here [23] and page 135 here [24]. These are just a few published sources from the first two Google search pages. There appear to be many more. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I’m not seeing much evidence of notability. It is currently a COI mess. It can be recreated if decent sources are found. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tenesha Palmer[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2013, 2014, 2015, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and previous AfD. Svartner (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claudia Galvis[edit]

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

The subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and previous AfD. Svartner (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charles, Prince of Nassau-Usingen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Princess Christine Wilhelmine of Saxe-Eisenach[edit]

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

This appears to be merely a genealogical entry. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, however. I see no indication of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Christine+Wilhelmine+of+Saxe-Eisenach%22+-wikipedia DrKay (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect. Of the three sources, one is a purely genealogical table, one is a list of primary sources in a state archive and one is about the castle she lived in, not her. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Charles, Prince of Nassau-Usingen per WP:ATD - not an implausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Charles, Prince of Nassau-Usingen. Sources are simply not enough to establish independent notability, but as someone else said the name could be a search term. Keivan.f^Talk 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taytum And Oakley Fisher[edit]

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

Joint WP:BLP of twin child actors, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not automatically passed just because the article lists roles, and requires WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the actor and their performances -- but five of the six footnotes here are garbage sources like Instagram posts and YouTube videos and other unreliable PR bumf that isn't support for notability at all, and the one marginally reliable source is a short blurb on a soap opera news site, which isn't enough to singlehandedly vault them over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-garbage source in the mix.
Further, the roles listed here are entirely bit parts, not "major" starring roles for the purposes of NACTOR #1, and even a "major" role would still have to be supported by GNG-worthy sourcing regardless. Additionally, we have a rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm to its subject, we have to be especially strict about the notability of minors.
There's absolutely nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Boasting about your children's first Instagram photos and implying that they post their photos? Though only an essay, WP:CHILD is still proper guidance, and unless they're in a major feature or series as a lead, this article should be salted until the subjects are able to control their own web presence. I'm very uncomfortable with this article's tone, and the article's editor, Soy Paula, seems to be only writing articles about young child actors and influencers going by their contribs, such as the article for Clements twins which contains an image of the subjects. I strongly ask them to consider another field of interest on any Wikiproject besides subjects who have no choice in what they can currently do. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This entirely fails both the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Social media posts and YouTube videos just don't cut it for WP:SIGCOV. Concur with others regarding WP:CHILD and the need for a salt. Let'srun (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tapasa vai Ganga[edit]

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

IMO, this article is not notable and does not include any references to support inclusion. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 15:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination, I tried to find some good covers in Books but i failed to find. — Quadrimobile(T · C 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Timeline of chemical element discoveries. The other target page proposed is just a Redirect to this article. Maybe check on this first before proposing Redirects as target pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discovery of the nonmetals[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced for years, and although I could potentially find sources for many of the sentences, I couldn't confirm that the concept itself is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Science. Skynxnex (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: seems to be a content fork of Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retain: The article is linked from Nonmetal, here, and was created to reduce the size of that article. It’s easy enough to find sources however my focus has been on getting the parent article up to FAC status. — Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Timeline of chemical element discoveries and/or Nonmetal. Currently, the article just lists individual element discoveries, without having an overarching idea that isn't better covered in another article, though any content not at the proposed targets should be consolidated, and this title would at least make a plausible redirect. I believe a more appropriate scope for a standalone article would be history of classification of nonmetals (as a group). Additionally, both this article and the section in Nonmetal are fairly short, so I don't think prose size is a major issue here, but a repurposed article would more clearly establish independent notability (categorization of elements is well-discussed in the literature) as well as providing a more substantial split. ^Complex/_Rational 01:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ComplexRational, do you think a "timeline" article may be too narrow? Surely there's enough of a connecting thread to have an article like History of chemical element discovery, or something prosaic like that. Remsense留 07:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  We already have Chemical_element#History, which first describes the history of the concept before linking to the timeline article, as well as History of the periodic table, which discusses their categorization in detail. I'm not so sure what a new article would cover that isn't tied to the history of elements or the periodic table and isn't a content fork of the timeline. ^Complex/_Rational 23:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I suppose it seems like there's enough history to split off and summary-style the former: for one thing, I know for certain that there's enough connective tissue post-WW2 to write a dedicated history article about. The book Superheavy by Kit Chapman could be leaned on for that period.^[1]

References

^ Chapman, Kit (2019). Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Periodic Table. London: Bloomsbury Sigma. ISBN 978-1-472-95389-6.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loyse de Pury[edit]

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

Sources are either not independent[25], not reliable[26], or not indepth (everything else, basically). Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Businesspeople, Visual arts, Royalty and nobility, and Switzerland. Fram (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG. I'm also concerned someone with autopatrol and 50k+ edits is still using blogs as references for BLPs, especially after being informed that this is not ok.[27] JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No proper coverage to meet notability.Royal88888 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Pure promotion. Auto5656 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert K. Montoye[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article provides no reason for us to think this person is notable; citing an article he co-wrote is of no help. Google Books proves he wrote a few more articles, some of which are listed in various bibliographies, but I have seen no discussion anywhere of this person, or any significant attention devoted to them. Note that we are here because the creator chose to ignore the concerns of other editors; they thought notability issues were handled, but I don't know what that's based on. So there's still a draft around, Draft:Robert K. Montoye, and they simply copied its content back into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of notability. Google Scholar also did not have to many citations for him. Royal88888 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, I will subsequently userfy for BeanieFan11 Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1873 New Jersey Athletic Club football team[edit]

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

Unable to find anything showing this one game season meets the WP:NSEASONS. The only source currently is a database, and I was unable to find any other sources showing notability. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything on that game on Newspapers.com. There are no obvious redirect targets as the New Jersey Athletic Club, though possibly notable itself (over 9K hits on NP), doesn't have an article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The culture of calling a single game a season ends now. Nowhere to merge. That being said, the game in question is mentioned at 1873 Stevens football team (which is itself a merge target). Geschichte (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete one match is not a season, the match itself isn't notable enough for an article either, so deletion is the only appropriate outcome. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Looks like a good deletion in its current format, but I'll wait to see if User:BeanieFan11 (article creator) wants to take a shot at expanding/defending. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request userfication to User:BeanieFan11/1873 New Jersey Athletic Club football team - I may decide to create an article on the New Jersey Athletic Club, if I find it to have sufficient notability. The user-fied page could potentially be of some use then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. As for userfication, the article is a micro-stub with a link to a CFBDW page reporting on a single game result. That CFBDW page is preserved here if BeanieFan11 or anyone else later decides to create an article on the NJAC. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While a minority of editors arguing for keep asserted that the article's referencing already meets GNG, this was not accompanied by an identification of sources that support this assertion, and disputed by further participants !voting for deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Thane[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. WP:SYNTH can be clearly seen from the section "background". There are sources contradicts the current result of the conflict and moreover, the article is very poorly notable. Can't see anywhere mentioned " Battle of Thane" in any of the WP:RS. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, India, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete yep seems to fail wp:n, with some iffy sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete minor battle that was never called "Battle of Thane" by historians. Two unrelated results on Google Scholar Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The title is clearly a Wikipedia artifice and "Arab raid on Thane" would perhaps be a better title. Passes WP:GNG - ample sources. Some renown as the first Arab attack on India, so likely that readers will search for it. The issue then is whether the article is sufficient, and would ever be expanded if not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are several other reasons behind this nomination. If we start to create seperate articles for each and every military conflicts, it would be a real mess. For this context, it is already present in Umayyad campaign in India. And how it passes GNG? I can barely see scattered single line in books. referring this topic. Another interesting thing I found is that the sources doesn't even mention the Rashidun Caliphate nor the name of commander (as per the reference of section "battle"). The user used WP:SYNTH there. Moreover, I found some other sources that contradicts the current result. So keeping this article will prompt other users to create similar poorly written articles.Imperial ^[AFCND] 01:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be that as it may, it does WP:GNG. There seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH. This is when you combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. That is not the case here. We know that 636 means the Rashidun Caliphate and we've all committed the names of the caliphs to memory. So it is just a matter of a reference missing. I note that neither lack of references in the article, nor WP:SYNTH, nor WP:OR for that matter are valid grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
actually i have sources to add in it, if you all dont mind should i add them?? Shakib ul hassan (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is not with the sources. It is about notability. If you have more than one reliable sources which deeply covers the "battle"/" raid", we can move with it. Add the sources and we can see if it is just some broken lines or an explained one. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't get anything for "Arab raid on Thane" either, so I'm not sure that's any better. What sources do you have that show a GNG pass? We should use whatever title they call it by. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Agreed with User:Hawkeye7 this event holds its own historical importance and should be covered on wikipedia as it was one of the first Arab ventures to India so I have reframed the article as much as I could. If the article passes WP:HEY and WP:GNG (according to me it does) then the article should be kept as D or C class, also I would suggest to renaming the article to "Ummayad expedition of Thana" or "Ummayad invasion of Thana" for better understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While talking about "notability", we should consider that there was zero Arab casualty during this conflict (can add citation if anyone needs). So it is clear that it was a mere skirmish. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment See Umayyad campaigns in India#Background which describes this event. Also as information: “[p. 220] In addition, historical evidence suggests that 'Uthman ibn Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. 55/675), the Governor of Bahrayn and 'Uman, sent a fleet to the coastal regions of Thanah (near Bombay) and Broach (in the Gulf of Cambay) via 'Uman under the command of his brother Haban ibn Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. ca. 45/65). But this naval expedition was sent without the permission of the reigning Caliph 'Umar, who, upon coming to know of it, forbade [p. 221] undertaking naval expeditions for the time being. The Governor of Bahrayn also sent one expedition to Debul, a port in Sindh, under his brother Mughirah ibn Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. ca. 15/636). Nonetheless, according to Mubarakpuri, the purpose of these two expeditions was not territorial subjugation and annexation; rather, they were meant to prevent their rulers from helping the Persians against the Muslim armies.” A footnote cites Philip K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State. New York: Columbia University Press, 1916 and a couple of other sources that might be relevant. A 1916 source should be available on line. From ANJUM, TANVIR. “The Emergence of Muslim Rule in India: Some Historical Disconnects and Missing Links.” Islamic Studies 46, no. 2 (2007): 217–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20839068. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: There seems to be too little information on the event with a general lack of sources. Many of the sources stating the result as disputed. With no reliable sources properly attributing the event (as many are disputed on what actually happened), or significant coverage, it fails WP:GNG. Noorullah (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the sigcov here either. If it's broadly known as the first military incursion of Arabs into India, I'd expect both better sourcing and better-contextualized coverage on a broader article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gloria Groove. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lady Leste (Ao Vivo)[edit]

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

I see a lot of announcements, but no real evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – No notability for a dedicated article. Can be redirected to Gloria Groove as WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartner you should probably have redirect bolded instead of delete so it's clearer to the closing admin that you support the redirect. And for what it's worth, I also support that redirect over deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Organization XIII. History remains if folks find incremental material to merge Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organization XIII[edit]

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

Most of the sources were primary and about the game. None of the sources that talks about the character as a group, only this [28]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Organization XIII per nom. There is also this bit of SIGCOV, and another article from Siliconera, but that's a repeat of the same publication and therefore does not qualify for GNG. I think they fall a bit short of standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There isn't really WP:SIGCOV about this group. A lot of the coverage is about individual characters (Roxas and Xion), and even then, the coverage is not that significant. Both are already covered at the redirect target, and one even has its own article. That means there would be nothing lost by deleting this list, but it is a viable search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Five pages of talk archives- a delisted WP:GA no less! An enormous amount of work has gone into maintaining this article, I feel it would be such a waste to delete it... Of course this is perhaps more appropriate material on Fandom or similar, but the suggested merge target Characters of Kingdom Hearts is 7765 words, arguably WP:TOOBIG for a merge that would actually preserve it. Regarding coverage, I know nothing about the series but was able to find WP:THREE easily, with two of them being very recent sources too: [29] [30] [31]. That alone should satisfy WP:GNG. The fact that it's easy to find sources so recent also suggests WP:NTEMP is relevant here; the issue is more likely a high signal to noise ratio on search results. I question if a proper WP:BEFORE check was done here, as the talk page archives and delisted GA status should be immediate red flags for an AfD nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You realize that the Good Article process has no relation to the notability of an article, and in fact, being notable is not a requirement for something to be a Good Article.

It's possible to find a content farm-y list of almost everything fictional these days, but such things have ceased to be a reliable gauge of something's importance a long time ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you're right that a lot of work is gone into it, none of your comment constitutes a valid keep argument. Per consensus at WP:VG/S, the sources you listed all fall into that territory of low-quality sourcing that is technically usable but not good evidence for notability. On short...you'll want to find a much stronger THREE to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know about VG/S, thank you for mentioning it. I see now that Valnet is listed as questionable reliability and that invalidates the sources I provided, so I will retract my !vote as I can't seem to find sources that aren't valnet related or from sites missing on the VG/S list. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio (WP:CSD#G12). ^Complex/_Rational 14:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vairankode Vela[edit]

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

From a rejected AfC draft at Draft:Vairankode_Vela, where it had six reviews at AfC before the author made it in mainspace for some reason.

Inappropriate sourcing, no indication of notability. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've requested speedy on copyvio basis; if that is declined for any reason, I will then come back to !vote delete. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapopolis[edit]

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

Not notable enough, I see only one old Forbes article, besides that I couldn't find any reliable independent sources indicating the notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Besides the Forbes article, I found a few mentions of this through google books [[32]][[33]]. Don't think there is nearly enough here to meet the WP:NCORP though. Let'srun (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I agree with users above me that this company likely fails NCORP, however the Mapopolis Navigator is a historical application that passes the WP:GNG. Since the Navigator was also called Mapopolis there is no need to rename the article. Rather, the opening sentence should be flipped. I am happy to do that. It's about 2 minutes to make some changes for the entire article. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as a page on the app. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HeavyFinance[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP and I didn't find better sources on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Lithuania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I have added another source. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm not sure if www.scottishfinancialnews.com is enough to get this over the edge but other editors can also weigh in. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, seems to get sufficient coverage in Verslo Žinios beside previously mentioned sources. I've added at least one of them. Respublik (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rob Cross (basketball)[edit]

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

fails GNG, never coached a fully professional team. Speedy was denied. 2A01:36D:1200:4638:8D94:5535:4761:7FEF (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. CptViraj (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not strange that a speedy was denied since a simple WP:BEFORE would have revealed this source literally on the first page of a Google searc. Note that having never coached a fully professional team has absolutely no bearing on a persons notability. I also noticed that when the IP user tried to Speedy delete the article, part of the comment read "[..] move the darts player to Rob Cross and remove the disambig." which indicates to me what this AfD is really about. I'm going to see if Newspapers.com will turn up further sources for the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the above source and this [34][35] Alvaldi (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if this person is proven to be notbale, Rob Cross should not remain a disambiguation, the primary topic is the darts player. --2A01:36D:1200:4638:8D94:5535:4761:7FEF (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the dart player is most likely the primary topic but an AfD of other subjects with the same name is not the way to correct that. It would have been better to start a move discussion or just simply WP:BOLDLY make the moves as it would not be terribly controversial. Alvaldi (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets GNG with new source plus those on the article. “Never coached a fully professional game” is not a valid deletion reason. College sports get significant press coverage in the US. Rikster2 (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets GNG and per Alvaldi. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Star Mississippi 03:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Occupational Health Science (journal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been taken to AfD already 3 times before under two different names (Occupational Health Science and Occupational Health Science (journal)). It was re-created again today with several claims purported to show that the journal now is notable. To start, it is claimed that the journal is "reviewed" by "the Science Citation Index's Web of Science."Apart from the fact that this is inverse (WoS is a platform providing access to the SCI, this is incorrect. Searching for the journal in Clarivate's master journal list shows that it is not included in the SCI, but in the much less selective Emerging Sources Citation Index. Since 2023, those journals receive an impact factor, but that is rather trivial. Next it is claimed that the journal is included in MEDLINE. This is incorrect, too: the NLM catalog explicitly states "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE". Some articles are included in PubMed Central because that is required for studies financed by the US government, but again that is rather trivial and does not contribute to notability. Next it is claimed that "The Occupational Health Psychology–Total Worker Health program housed at Portland State University also underlined the importance of OHS as a key resource for research in OHP." Checking the link reveals no such thing, the journal is just listed in the lowest category of 3 as "Additional OHP Journals". References 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 are just in-passing mentions. The journal is indeed indexed in PsycINFO, but that is not considered a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Reference 11 is the journal's own homepage and reference 12 is used to support indexing in Scopus. Unfortunately, research.com is not a very reliable source and indeed Scopus itself does not list the journal. In conclusion, no valid claims to notability have been added since this was last at AfD (March 2023). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I changed the article in a number of significant ways given the past debate about the article. I did the following:

(1) I used many sources that are external to the journal.

(2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. I sourced the indexes themselves rather than use the journal's website in the spirit of minimizing the use of the journal's website and increasing reliance on external sources.

(3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP.

The journal is more notable given the above. I used the citation style of the American Psychological Association because the article psychology-related.

I shared the above information with administrator @user:CycloneYoris yesterday who was slating the article for deletion. The administrator then changed his mind about slating the article for deletion after I explained the above. Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That CycloneYoris (justifiedly) found that the article is not G4-eligible doesn't mean that it's notable. I have discussed every single source that you mentioned in my nom and conclude that the journal still is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Indeed as RK explains, the journal is not notable. Merging is best. If not, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I observed that an editor wrote that "the NLM catalog explicitly states 'Not currently indexed for MEDLINE.'" I conducted a search of the NLM at https://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt. I found that Occupational Health Science is indexed. The index is alphabetized. The NlmId is 101715919. Iss246 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is the journal identifier in Pubmed, which is legally require to index some article, regardless of provenance. Namely articles subject to US funding. MEDLINE is not Pubmed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I observed that the journal is indexed by APA in PsycInfo. See https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/journal-coverage-list.pdf Iss246 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can't be taken both ways. When OHS was not in PsycInfo that was considered a demerit for the journal. Now that it is indexed in PsycInfo an editor can write that PsycInfo isn't sufficiently selective. PsycInfo is the database for psychological research and practice. Iss246 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignore the appearances in citation indices, those are irrelevant to notability as the actual guideline for journals is GNG, which requires SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent RS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Portland State Total Worker Health website, the journal is listed there among the journal resources. See https://sites.google.com/pdx.edu/occupational-health-psychology/ohp-resources#h.p_lwz4w8TnR9W8 Iss246 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology - reading through the previous AfDs and this one, it's clear to me that this still doesn't show notability. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:NJournals, to be notable a journal has to meet one of 3 criteria:

1: Reliable sources consider it influential
2: Frequently cited in other reliable sources
3: It is historically important in its subject area

In Paul Spector's history of the OHP field ^[1], he notes (p. 17) the launching of OHS by Society of Occupational Health Psychology as an important milestone in the field's development, supporting criterion 3. OHS also has a reasonable citation impact, supporting 2. Where a journal is indexed is not one of the criteria. I see that OHS meets 2 of the 3 criteria, and only needs 1 to be considered notable. Psyc12 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psyc12, NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. The guideline relevant to notability of journals is WP:GNG, which requires SIGCOV in IRS sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology - No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The mention in Spector's history is trending in the right direction: I would want to see more discussion like that. Suriname0 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the benefit of others, here are the relevant excerpts from ^[1]:

It has its own journals. Work & Stress was founded in 1981 by Tom Cox at the University of Nottingham in the UK. Although the focus at the time was occupational stress, today it has broadened to incorporate all topics in occupational health psychology. Other journals focus on stress in general, including occupational stress (e.g., International Journal of Stress Management), whereas occupational health psychology journals such as Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Occupational Health Science are major outlets for occupational stress research.

While describing "characteristics that define [OHP] as an established field":

OHP Journals. APA has supported the development of OHP by publishing Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. In 2016, SOHP launched Occupational Health Science to be an interdisciplinary OHP journal. Work & Stress originally devoted to occupational stress evolved into a broader OHP journal as it became affiliated with the EAOHP (Cox & Tisserand, 2006).

Suriname0 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Spector, P. E. (2023). From Occupational Fatigue to Occupational Health. In L. M. Lapierre & C. Cooper (Eds.), Organizational Stress and Well-Being (Cambridge Companions to Management. (pp. 7-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009268332.003

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but discuss framing‎. There isn't much of a consensus to be seen here. However, it is evident that the concerns about this article have to do with its framing; should it exist as is, be converted to a set index, or rewritten to be a broad-concept article? These are valid concerns, but AfD is poorly suited to dealing with these, as it is primarily a forum for uninvolved editors to determine notability. Given that the case for outright deletion (as opposed to some form of reworking) is very weak here, I'm closing this with the suggestion that discussion of the remaining concerns be taken to a talk page or wiki-project page where subject experts can weigh in in a less constrained format. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnic peoples[edit]

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

This article is about Finnic peoples in an expanded sense. According to the introduction, the term includes the peoples speaking Finno-Permic languages (sometimes called Finnic languages) of the Uralic language family. (A narrower and arguably more common meaning of Finnic peoples refers to the Balto-Finnic peoples.)

The most pressing problem with this article is that no such ethnolinguistic group exists. It is a fictional group based on linguistic concept of Finno-Permic languages. The existence of such language branch is very much disputed in the Uralic linguistics, which makes the existence of such 'peoples' even more tenuous. Although one can find some discussion about 'Finnic peoples' in this sense in the slightly older literature (e.g. Sinor 1990, where the most recent citations are to scholarly articles published in 1984), the term does not seem to be in a very common use nowadays.

I propose the article to be deleted. There is some content about the ethnonym Finn, which could be made into its own article, similar to Slavs (ethnonym) or could be discussed at Finn (probably the latter). The movements of the people described in Sinor's book can be covered in the article Finno-Ugric languages#Speakers or elsewhere. (The existence of a separate article Finno-Ugric peoples is also being discussed, but is not that relevant for this discussion.)

I also point out that even though there are many wikilinks to this article, most of these originally referred to Finno-Ugric peoples and were redirected here in a single edit spree in 2021. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Estonia, Finland, and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Week keep First, I'm confused about the use of the "ethnolinguistic group" which is not just a trifle about my pet peeve, but it's relevant since the OP says that the most pressing problem with this article is that no such "ethnolinguistic group" exists. An ethnoliguistic group (singular) is an ethnic group (singular) primarily defined by a shared language (singular). The article makes no such claim about Finnic peoples (plural!), although it temporarily did so because of this[36] edit. Well, I can nevertheless parse through the argument inspite of its unfortunate terminology.

The terms Finns and Finnic peoples (with or without further classifier) have been used with quite some latitude in the literature, so some kind of disambiguation is necessary. The solution provided with the article Finnic peoples is a WP:broad-concept article that mostly serves to guide through this confusing terminology. Sure, I can see some problems with the presentation, e.g.: "The Finnic or Fennic peoples, sometimes simply called Finns, are..."; this wording insinuates a clear definition, inspite of the fact the main reason for having this article is the ambiguity of the term "Finnic peoples". Also, the question of the primary meaning needs to be settled. At various points, editors who contest the existence of this article have argued that "Finnic peoples" does have a primary meaning, viz. the topic currently covered at Balto-Finnic peoples. If a survey of the literature leads to such a result, we still need some kind of disambiguation whether it is a strict dab, or still a broad-concept article but then with a different title (Hindi vs. Hindi Belt is an example). –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This makes sense to me. It was not clear to me that this is supposed to be a broad-concept article, since the scope of the term is fixed in first paragraph first by the reference to Finno-Permic languages, and then with the list of peoples included. To allow for the spectrum of meanings, one would need to remove that list from the intro, and define the topic with something like The Finnic peoples [...] are the nations who speak languages related to Finnish. However, this does present a problem with the links pointing here, since many of them refer to a specific subset of peoples (e.g. Baltic, Saami and Volgaic) and linking here will not anymore explain what the intended meaning was. But we will just have to resolve the links carefully case-by-case, and explain the intended meaning in each article. This is not hopeless, as we also have articles like Chud which discuss the historic terms referring to Finno-Ugric peoples, and which can be used to resolve the ambiguity as far possible. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another point that needs to be evaluated is how many sources actually use the term "Finns" or "Finnic" without additional qualifier to broadly refer to the diverse Finno-Ugric speaking groups covered in this article. It is not uncommon (especially in older sources) to find e.g. the terms "Finns" and "Volga Finns" with mutually exclusive scope, the first referring to Finns as commonly understood, and the latter to the Maris and Mordvins (plus historical ethnic groups that underwent Russification in the Middle Ages). Consequently, in such usage, "Finns" is not a broad term that includes the Volga Finns and that needs to be specified (let's say as "Finns proper") when meant to refer to Finns as commonly understood. I can see that some sources used in the article do support the broad usage (e.g. The East Finnic Minorities in the Soviet Union), but I'm less sure whether plain "Finns" is ever meant in the broad sense in e.g. "On North-Western Contacts of Perm Finns in VII–VIII Centuries". I'm still on the "keep" side, but we need to prune the sources to get a clearer picture. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am starting to lean on the keep side myself. I am checking the accuracy of the wikilinks pointing here (and reading the references also). Many of them refer to Baltic Finns (or Finno-Ugrians in more general sense), but there are also many that do refer to this more amorphous concept. A very large majority of those references are about the Middle Ages, usually related to Kievan Rus', ~~so one option might be to focus this article on history (like Germanic peoples).~~ Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the question whether Finns is ever used in the broad sense: I don't see much evidence of it being a common topic of a longer discussion. This old book (1898) is the only work I have found which has chosen this scope. It is much more common to discuss 'Finno-Ugrians'. On the other hand, the group of 'Finno-Permic languages' has been regularly called 'Finnic languages', so there are plenty of books which also classify the Finno-Ugric peoples into Ugric and Finnic groups. But 'Finnic peoples' in this sense is such an abstract group that there is not much to say about it (and the most general things have in most works already been discussed on the level of Finno-Ugric/Uralic peoples). Above, I strike out the proposal of having an article focused on history. I still think this would be useful, but is too unlikely to materialize any time soon. A set-index article would serve the needs well-enough for now. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Proposer (and others) want to restrict the term "Finn" to their own ethnic preference. The literature is broader, and we need to reflect the literature. Due to persistent efforts by various editors over the years to censor WP in this way, we need to provide clarification. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One might consider this a personal attack. I am Finnish, yes, but I can't tell which one would be more chauvinistic: to expand the meaning of Finn to cover more people, or to restrict it to people more closely related to Finnish. The expansion of the meaning during the 19th century was related to ethnonationalistic tendencies, so I would argue that its the former. And the Finnish translation of Finnic peoples in the narrow sense is itämerensuomalaiset kansat, Baltic Sea Finnic peoples, so this is not related to the correspondence with Finnish either. On the topic of censorship, please refer to my initial post at Talk:Finnic peoples#Changes from Finno-Ugric to Finnic. I don't think mass change from unambiguous broad term Finno-Ugric to ambiguous Finnic did much good in terms of clarity. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inviting the people at the talk page (with more than 2 edits) to join the discussion: @Tuohirulla, TylerBurden, Thadh, and Sirfurboy:. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This information is best hosted at other articles, like Balto-Finnic peoples and Finno-Ugric languages#Speakers: the only new information this article seems to give is "Various people have been called "Finnic" through time" (followed by examples), which, while true, is not imo deserving of an entire article.

I would much prefer the article on Balto-Finnic peoples be moved to this article's location and a section be added on the historical use of the term, but if I understand correctly that is out of scope for this particular discussion. Thadh (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping. I am not ready to come down on a !vote yet. I think Austronesier has made excellent points about what this article should be, and the nom.s case is a considered one. I wonder whether there may be a case for creation of a WP:SETINDEX. More than a DAB is called for, but the current arrangement of these articles must be confusing to a reader. This one might be a prime candidate for a set index article that seeks to cut through the confusion. But would that necessitate loss of information that is otherwise here? Any thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As pointed out above, all the unique information in this article is contained in the second paragraph which defines the various scopes of the term. The third paragraph only makes an unreferenced claim that 'Finnic' in this specific sense is not based on linguistics unlike 'Finno-Ugric' or 'Uralic', and the fourth paragraph about history is again unreferenced (history at Balto-Finnic peoples is better, and one can include a history with a broader scope at Finno-Ugric languages if desirable). The etymology can be found at Finns#Etymology. It seems to be possible to turn that second paragraph into a set-index article without a loss of information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Such group doesnt exist and Finnic means Balto-Finnic.Tuohirulla puhu 13:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ahir. Star Mississippi 03:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahirs as Yadavs[edit]

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

Blatant WP:POVFORK of Ahir, presenting an explicitly marginal point of view as fact. Should be merged and given WP:DUE coverage in the main article. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the article, it appears that the editor wants to refute a fake narrative being spread by some people that Ahirs and Yadavs are different. It should be merged into Ahir page (Ahirs as Yadavs). Is a separate article necessary? 2409:4085:8E9D:92B4:0:0:8809:9400 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Ahir -- This article seems to have solid sourcing, but the info belongs in the parent article. The battle over exactly what should be in that article and how it should be presented belongs on the Ahir Talk page. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-Singapore based artistes who had studied in Singapore[edit]

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

No evidence that this intersection of two characteristics is actually a notable topic Fram (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Lists of people, Education, and Singapore. Fram (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom; entirely non-notable topic. CoconutOctopus talk 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and for using the word "artistes". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sta. Lucia National High School[edit]

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

My linguistic limitations may be a factor here, but I couldn't find he sources to show this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. High schools are usually found notable but only if we can verify it. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Strongest ref that I got is this one which tells that the school was flooded and mosquito infested on the first day of classes --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close - it seems that this nomination is motivated by a desire to retain and improve the article either as a separate article or merged into an unspecified other article. AfD isn't really a good forum for this, especially for politically contentious topics like this (and especially at this time).‎. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zionism as settler colonialism[edit]

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

Don’t shoot the messenger (see below), but editors have raised concerns of a POV fork and layout concerns, among other issues. A messy 2022 RfC was closed with suggestions that other processes be used. Seems the quickest way to improve the article (to whatever extent it is decided that improvements are necessary) is to haul it up here. A general venue also has the strong advantage of likely attracting editors without much ARBPIA involvement.

I probably won’t choose to be involved further in this discussion as this is just a Twinkle nom from random patrol (and one that could potentially ignite a firestorm), but my vote at the time of nominating would go to merging into a target to be decided. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Israel, and Palestine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ridiculous nomination. It's clearly a notable topic, per the sources cited in the article. POV fork of what? The article is about a viewpoint (WP:SUBPOV). If you think the viewpoint has no merit, then it's still no more a POV fork than the article creationism. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pink Line (Namma Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IIMB metro station[edit]

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

Only one of the added sources mentions this metro station, that too as part of a long list of stations (i.e. bare mention). I was unable to find anything else that would help this to meet WP:GNG. Recommend Redirect to Pink Line (Namma Metro). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Karnataka. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - it's WP:TOOSOON to know which individual stops/stations on the new Bengaluru metro line will be notable given that they've not yet opened. Even when they have, I suspect only a few of the major intersection stations on the line will have the level of interest needed to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep pending a discussion about all the future stations on the line. It makes no sense to discuss these stations individually as their notability will be almost identical and inconsistency will not benefit readers. If that doesn't gain consensus, I very strongly oppose deletion - the title should be a blue link and there is no cause to delete the content so it should be kept, merged or redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Pink Line (Namma Metro) Djflem (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete WP:Geoland is clear that train stations are not notable unless they meet WP:GNG. Also, as already stated it is a future train station in a long series of train stations. It is wp:toosoon to write this as a standalone article. It also does not meet WP:NRV as it lacks sufficient sources to establish it's notability. I also think any given non notable train station is WP:run-of-the-mill.James.folsom (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Editors may want to consider Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Begging_for_mercy and other points found therein.James.folsom (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Pink Line (Namma Metro) per the above. I'd like to refute the unsupported assertion that any random train station is non-notable and "run-of-the-mill", as that is a WP:OSE argument; many stations meet the GNG as they are important to the communities that they serve. However, at this point there are very few sources about this particular station. Other future stations that do not meet the GNG should also be redirected for now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear in my vote due to constantly trying to use different language for all these similar subjects. Also none of my statements refer to other articles, so its not clear why you chose to refer to that particular section of OSE. That doesn't matter though as what I was saying is that I think any random and non-notable train station is run of the mill. But, I should have been more clear--> Train stations are very common and run of the mill, they need to have clearly demonstrable notability in order to have an article.James.folsom (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I misread you as saying that other train stations were random and thus not notable. Thanks for the clarification.
My reasoning is that, although I agree that train stations may not have inherited notability, in many regions they may also be important to their respective communities, so there may be enough coverage for these stations to meet GNG. My !vote was referring to the fact that, while notability may not be demonstrated for this station, other stations may indeed be notable, so we should not determine that other stations aren't notable based on this deletion discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100% right there with you.James.folsom (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Fergus Wyatt[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Obit	1. "Click here to view the tribute page for James Fergus WYATT". funeral-notices.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
Linked In	2. ^ "LinkedIn: Log In or Sign Up". LinkedIn. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
Github repo	3. ^ https://universityofleeds.github.io/philtaylorpapers/pmt/exhibits/1441/sandy7.pdf
Primary sourced gov record	4. ^ "POCKETCOMMS LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK". find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
Primary	5. ^ Wyatt, James (2007). PocketComms: Universal Language System. Coventry: PocketComms.

Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 05:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DELETE - not notable per WP stanards. Fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DELETE. Searches on Wikipedia Library, Proquest, and Bing did not turn up any significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which are a requirement for publishing biographical articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:BIO. (Tried some name variations as well and wasn't able to find anything that looked like a match for this person.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riley Schmidt[edit]

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

Notability not established. Most notable roles are just as body doubles. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NACTOR - limited non-sustained AHS coverage (and interviews are not independent). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and per @Hydronium Hydroxide

Cray04 (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kevin Abosch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kwikdesk[edit]

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

Dead, not notable project. I suggest either deleting or redirecting to Kevin Abosch. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: or Redirect per nom. While not awful, the page almost seems to fail NPOV in some sections. Doesn't demonstrate the notability of the platform per WP:GN and whil the concept is interestin, and the involvement of Kevin Abosch and Wu'erkaixi, the references provided do not establish significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources per WP:SIGCOV. This doesn't deserve a page unfortunately.

Cray04 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Studiometry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, not notable, no reliable independent sources, just one random old product review. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PRODUCT. "Just one random old product review" is factually inaccurate as the article already cites three reviews, at least two of which are in reliable sources. It looks like most versions back to at least 1.1 received reviews in 2000-era Macintosh magazines; see this archive.org search. Jfire (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Source 1 is pretty weak, but sources 2 and 3 in the article along with the source Jfire found establishes WP:NPRODUCT. As a remark, I'm surprised that archive.org even has the executables available for download online (although I had to remove the "&sin=TXT" from Jfire's search link for it to work for me). Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Cadbury brands and also Cola. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Export Cola[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no sources to demonstrate otherwise. Tooncool64 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Cadbury Swan505 (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cadbury doesn't mention Export Cola so not a great target. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete a soft drink that was removed from the market 24 years ago is of little value now. No references is a major drawback. Teraplane (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rewrite and selectively merge to Cola which already includes a list of brands, or to List of Cadbury brands, which are the best targets I can find. There is some coverage: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. There are results for "export cola" in Australian newspapers in Newspapers.com and in Newspaperarchive.com. These are behind a paywall. The TV advert seems to have been popular, and the brand is said to have cost Cadbury Schweppes a great deal of money. Looking at the periodical articles (which discuss other brands, drinks and companies, and the market generally), the best solution might be an WP article on something like the history of soft drinks in Australia, but someone would have to write that article first. James500 (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@James500, due to paywalls, I can't review all of them but it seems like what you've found could make a reasonable case for WP:GNG. In appreciation of WP:RECENTISM, an article on a pre-Internet subject such as this should be given some leeway. ~Kvng (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions about recently discovered media coverage and Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to both Cola and List of Cadbury brands per James500. The information should be in both places (possibly transcluded). Aaron Liu (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: To List of Cadbury brands and cola per above. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC) _{Edited at 18:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC) per below.}Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123 Why not merge it into Cola at the same time? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine as well. Missed that option when I was skimming this AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyle Ming[edit]

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

The subject, a Jamaican men's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The Jamaica Star piece already in the article is the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, with about five sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I think there's just enough coverage, see this and this and this and this. Young player with ongoing career. GiantSnowman 22:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: Other than the aforementioned Star article, the given sources mention him a total of two times per article. JTtheOG (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Aside from Jamaica Star article, hits on Google shows up mentions in other news articles. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 10:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing international carer and sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, none of the above sources is WP:SIGCOV. Being young and having an ongoing career is not grounds for having an article. Alvaldi (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Jamaica Star has enough WP:SIGCOV, but of the remaining sources, 2 and 3 (in the article) are routine mentions, 4 is a YT interview, 5 is statistics from a single match, 6, 7, and 8 are not about the subject as team accomplishments. Bottom line, there isn't enough coverage now to support a BLP on this subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Agreed with Alvaldi that none of the sources above approach SIGCOV. The Star/Jamaica Gleaner interview coverage of Ming is almost entirely from his perspective, even when not in direct quotes, e.g. Kyle Ming is fully aware ... Ming, the Cavalier defensive backbone, is confident .... Nowhere close to SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete coverage provided by GiantSnowman appears to fall slightly short of GNG. The Jamaica Star source is acceptable as it includes significant non-interview content, but that alone is not enough, the rest are routine announcements and/or match reports. As a young player with an ongoing career, it is possible he could become notable in the not too distant future; I would support a move to draft space as well. Frank Anchor 04:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CrowdSec[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to funding announcements, press release reprints, and interviews. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and France. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Sources do seem promotional. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Homewood, Kansas. Rename and redirect is the real consensus here; I will move the redirect shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forrest Home, Kansas[edit]

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

Another 4th class post office, this one moved to Homewood, which was and is a real town. The only thing at this spot on the topos and aerials is what looks like a church and is labelled "Acorn Community Hall" on the topos. It's 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from Homewood as the crow flies, or 3.5 miles (5.6 km) as the tractor drives. I can find nothing about this "hall" and it's clear this is just another non-notable place. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Listed as an extinct town here https://legendsofkansas.com/franklin-county-extinct-towns/. 1877 is too far back for the local papers and there is nothing I can find. Would likely require local research to find enough sources. These wouldn't be considered widespread coverage though. Its an archeology site.James.folsom (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeleteNever will be enough sources to make an article that meets WP:N, and it's not presumed notable because it's not legally recognized.James.folsomRedirect renaming and sending it to Homewood, Kansas sounds great, per Jfire. (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First rename to fix the typo in the title, then redirect to Homewood, Kansas per Rydjord, John (1972). Kansas place-names. Internet Archive. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-0994-7. which states Homewood in Franklin County was first called Forest Home. Jfire (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename and redirect per Jfire. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename and redirect per Jfire. Djflem (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IIT Madras. with the option of merging encyclopedic content that doesn't exist at the target. In a case such as this meeting WP:GNG isn't enough; those arguing to keep must demonstrate the need for a standalone article, as opposed to covering the same content in the closely related parent article. No such demonstration has been made here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IIT Madras Zanzibar[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NORG, Subject is an extension campus for the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, which has a section for the campus already IIT Madras#IIT Madras Zanzibar Campus. Unneeded CFORK with no independent notability apart from the parent. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Tanzania, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to IIT Madras. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with IIT Madras 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an international campus of IIT Madras that was started in collaboration between the Government of India and Zanzibar. There are many other pages existing on Wikipedia that serve as extensions of their main campuses, for example, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Dubai Campus. International campuses operate with a certain level of autonomy or have distinct programs, faculty, or initiatives that are noteworthy enough to merit their own Wikipedia page. RN (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per RN.IN as noted above the international campus of IIT Madras that was started in collaboration between the Government of India and Zanzibar.There is coverage in the media about this.The Hindu ,The Indian Express ,India Today ,Hindustan Times ,The Times of India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article has not enough information to exist independently. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'm also leaning merge - although I'm not sure it is as clear as others are suggesting above. For one thing it is set up as a educational institute between the governments and the IIT, which seems to be well noted in the mainstream Indian press. I agree that there is little critical information in the news articles, but I think it is likely that more references will emerge in 2024 and there may well be enough to justify a page before long. JMWt (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Binod Bihari Verma[edit]

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

Cannot find any indepth coverage of the person in any English-language books, newspapers or other sources. A few name drops in bibliographies of some books here and there but besides that nothing. If sources in Maithili (the language of this writer) or offiline ones exist I cannot say, but considering that the maiwiki also does not contain his bio, I would not be too sure about that either. As of now, the article appears to be entirely self promotional. Gotitbro (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, India, and Bihar. Gotitbro (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Agletarang (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. failed Wikipedia general notability guideline. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination — Quadrimobile(T · C 19:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KPDR-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked with the members of the Talking Utah Radio message boards and they informed me that this TV station is still licensed for Utah. It is also still sending out an RF signal as well. The website is down, but no other news has been announced at this time.CKStark (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because the station still exists doesn't mean it is automatically notable, as WP:NMEDIA is no longer a notability guideline. Thus, this subject must meet the GNG for it to have a standalone article, and I see nothing here to show that to be the case. Thus, Delete. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Existence is not notability. This article is definitely the product of the pre-2021 more-lax (interpretation of) notability standards in this topic area — but even then, the old NMEDIA's overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources. That often got overlooked years ago (and would not be allowed to persist in any newly-created mainspace page today), but even now the references section is completely empty. As currently written, this article thus wouldn't actually have actually met NMEDIA to the extent this was ever really applicable; suffice it to say it's nowhere near meeting the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chrome (XM)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Generic dance station with nothing outstanding and notable, and filled with the 'industry jargon' type of writing (format hole...ugggh!) we have long (or tried to) abandoned. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels, the entry for Chrome there provides enough information. Links to articles are often shared and used, web searches can more easily refer to the article this way as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holzklöppel (talk • contribs) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Only 1 ref that aren't first sources. Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sportland Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating event. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Hungary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I searched and was unable to find significant coverage from any independent reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete doesn't look to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No case has been made for retention. If someone unconnected with Warner would like the article draftified for improvement, just ping me Star Mississippi 01:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skoota Warner[edit]

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

Article built on a redirect. Unsourced content, fails to meet WP:NMUSIC as far as I can tell. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom --FMSky (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nothing here of any notability. All edits are by an SPA who persists despite several restorations of the redirect. Only one source and that is unreliable as it is partly an interview with the subject. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Concerning the article's history, it should not be redirected to a band in which Warner was merely a brief member or sideman, among his many similar activities. Just delete his namespace altogether, and if there is evidence of refusing to accept consensus, then WP:SALT can be considered too. As for Warner, he seems to be making a living as a for-hire backing/session hand and owner of a studio where some notable people have recorded, but reliable sources only ever mention him very briefly in articles that are about someone else with whom he worked. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey everyone, I am making several attempts to get rid of the redirect, because as someone working with Skoota himself, we are merely trying to make sure his details are being published to his page. I have many reliable references I need to add, and he is hoping to be able to add all future albums and business moves to this wiki page, please let me know if he should need to get involved. I see total relevance in the Ra page being linked, but not it taking his page and immediately redirecting it to Ra. I hope this helps clarify any doubts in validity or intention. Saracward!! (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to have a strong conflict of interest here as would Skoota himself. Wikipedia is not interested in his albums or business moves. All that is required is multiple fully independent and reliable sources discussing Skoota to establish notability. At this stage, that is all that is required but neither you nor Skoota should be editing the article. You should post suggested edits to the article talk page for other editors to consider. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, thank you, I will let him know and I'll be sure to not add more information to the page. We sincerely appreciate you not deleting the page and please let us know if there are any further issues Saracward!! (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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