The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muffuletta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olive salad[edit]

Olive salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Contents of this article could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences on the Muffuletta article. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Muffuletta. Per nom, this is not a distinct enough product with sourcing specific to it to need a stand-alone article. All sources here are in the context of the muffaletta. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as opposed to redirect, to save some information and sources. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I realize this is not a typical argument at AfD, but you can also put it on pasta. Olive salad is associated with the muffuletta, and to be sure some version of it will be on every muffuletta, but you can also add it to any cold cut sandwich. You can drop a spoonful on an actual salad with leaves. I think it will be hard to establish notability for olive salad away from its parent sandwich because even recipes or articles talking about it in another context will still likely mention the sandwich. If it can't be kept though, it should likely be merged rather redirected or deleted outright to give more context for people unfamiliar with the spread. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Coleslaw#Variations and similar dishes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli slaw[edit]

Broccoli slaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Coleslaw#Variations_and_similar_dishes. Substituting one ingredient for another doesn't make it a separately notable concept needing a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively merge and redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Watermelon#Culinary. And Merge to any other relevant articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon salad[edit]

Watermelon salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Watermelon#Culinary or Fruit salad. Just because there are diverse recipes that happen to use a certain main ingredient doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is another one to selectively merge and redirect as suggested. I would especially keep the New York Times recipe as a good source to keep. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – agree. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. This should be a procedural close since there is no deletion nomination statement but given that the nominator eventually gives a rationale, I'll close this as Redirect. But really, you can't just tag an article and be done with it. BEFORE, remember? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPFW-LD[edit]

KPFW-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: the nom may have failed to provide any explanation, but this DTV America/HC2/Innovate station — only marginally older than the stations actually started by the company — has the usual lack of significant coverage (or prospect of any) to meet the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mvcg66b3r: It would help if you provided a rationale for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speakerpunch[edit]

Speakerpunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Their only claim to notability is winning the 'Saturnus Beachbattle' contest in 2013. This award has zero coverage and neither does the band, clearly not passing WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. InDimensional (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage for this band that I can find in RS. Gsearch is simply their website and various download or streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tried .nl sites, you only get about 5 hits in Gnews for concert listings. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partiboi69[edit]

Partiboi69 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very little reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any reliable sources in the article but while searching I have found that he has written some Medium articles,[1] has released alot of songs that are on Genius,[2] and is on BBC Radio 1's residency.[3] But, this does not prove notability.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, most of the sources are not independent, would need more independent sources such as mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this page was already contested for speedy deletion from the messages on the talk page. Some of the sources have also been analysed by Jack4576 here — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion the analysis is incorrect as several of the sites he listed as secondary, reliable, and independent were in fact not secondary, and not independent as they were literally promoting his show or appearance somewhere. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Suonii180 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tijuana Sweetheart. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Siegman[edit]

Elena Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Nothing in her article demonstrates notability, and I couldn't find any meaningful coverage on her elsewhere beyond a source I'm unsure on the reliability of ([4]). λ NegativeMP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tijuana Sweetheart where she is mentioned and a believable search target. Otherwise, however, I am not seeing WP:NARTIST being passed by the current sourcing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not enough sources available for a standalone article. @T.C.G. [talk] 05:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MAC service data unit[edit]

MAC service data unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per previous PROD: Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was deleted via the aforementioned PROD, but then REFUND'd (by me) to draft space so that the requestor could address the notability issue raised in the prod. That issue has not been addressed, but the requestor moved it to article space. Requested they move it back to draft, but they declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a DICDEF with a photo. For the two sentences of text, we could add them to another article, but I don't see what the point would be. And to be honest, I've read these sentences and still have no idea what this article talks about. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the requester. MAC service data unit or MSDU is mentioned in Frame aggregation, Protocol data unit, IEEE 802.11e-2005, Maximum transmission unit, IEEE 802.11n-2009 and Jumbo frame. I believe there were a few other incoming links before this was deleted via PROD. Removing this definition from the encyclopedia doesn't seem to serve readers. If the consensus is that the article needs to be deleted we should look for WP:ATDs to help readers through the jargon soup of computer networking in its absence. ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Here are the first few Books search results: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The term is indeed very widely used - and trivial in a proper context, see definition at [10]: in non-OSI model networks (the ones actually used) this is just the data that MAC exchanges with the application ("user"), or LLC (if there is an LLC sublayer). Without an explicit context the definitions become hard to understand, like the one here. To provide context, it is easier to merge someplace where the context is provided, say, into Media access controller. --Dimawik (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do !vote. I would accept merger into media access controller as WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I did not vote is simple: the proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces. The best place at this moment is IEEE 802, but it currently contains very little information and is mostly dedicated (properly) to the standardization group itself. A new article, similar to OSI model should be written, and this will be a proper place to merge. It is also possible that links to this non-existent (unless I am missing something) article might actually help to rewrite this article. I don't mind writing the article (IEEE 802 reference model) myself, by I am short on time right now, and the task is non-trivial. Dimawik (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have to make things great with this WP:AFD - WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do want to avoid making things worse. I agree that this article lacks context and have just tagged it as such. There is a lot of room for improvement in this area but just deleting bits of it around the edges is not improvement and it is not the Wikipedia way - WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your reasoning. I will add the bare minimum of context right now. Dimawik (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Media access controller is a Redirect so not a proper Merge target. Would its target article, Medium access control be acceptable or are there more arguments to Delete or Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous relisting comment and reply to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, I believe Dimawik already answered that above The proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces. There is more than a merge required if we want to cover this subject as part of another article e.g. Medium access control. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only question is that a page was being proposed as a Redirect/Merge target article that was a Redirect. So, I was asking if they wanted that Redirect's target article to be the actual target or whether they would prefer a different target article. That was my question. I'd still like to hear from Dimawik and UtherSRG who favored this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a merge or redirect to medium access control would work for me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG, would you be able to do that merge? I find the same issue that Dimawik identified. Just merging MAC service data unit without providing context would not improve either the source or destination articles. ~Kvng (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't do the merge. BLAR is fine for now. When you or someone else gets the time and patience, they can easily see the info in the history. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion now is to Draftify it. I will merge the material into (IEEE 802 reference model that I put into my scheduke. I have made a picture already. In these coordinates, the MSDU is just the data passing through MSAP. Dimawik (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimawik, Thanks for your interest in helping with this. Why do you think we need to draftify? Is there some harm done to readers by leaving it in mainspace until the work can be done? It seems like it is a likely search term and I think it would be better for readers to see an unfinished article than nothing at all. Leaving it in mainspace also offers the chance that another expert will see it and help us out with improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as-is is not very helpful, but is indeed not hurtful either. So your (keep) proposal also makes sense. Dimawik (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Elisabeth von Humboldt[edit]

Marie-Elisabeth von Humboldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability only through her sons, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Present on 2 other projects, but they are entitled to make different decision. There is some evidence of being a benefactor (supporting the local parish), but that itself was inherited. The pages of Wilhelm and Alexander seem sufficiently well-developed that a merge wouldn't be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what to answer? The page poses a problem for the person's notoriety. But, from the perspective of diversity in Wikipedia, I find it interesting to have the perspective of female personalities. In general, the existence of biographical writings is used to determine whether or not an article is admissible. Here, it was the subject of an article in a book, but in the 19th. From a diversity perspective, I find this article important. In itself, it does not bother people who are not interested in the subject. And people who are interested will learn something there. The article is neither a subject of contention nor a subject of controversy, it is not about a recent person, nor of self-promotion. Where is the problem ? She hasn't done enough work to have the right to appear in an encyclopedia?History of women is important itself, simple conclusion. And in the 18th, be a mother was a job. There are 5 or 6 pages linked to this page. Marion (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must add something : german page exist first. Then, I translated the page from german to french. Then I decided to give an emphasis the this article, by making a translation to english. So, in french, when I created the article, nothing was told about it. In german, I dont know as the article exist previously. Marion (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I also want to add an argument : in wikipédia, there are more men biographies than women (statistics). And, when I read them, as I am for a long time a wikipedia reader, I noticed we often read that men "became" something, someone, an artist, a politician etc. by their own. But, here is also a part of feminist ideas, I find important to explain people grew up in an environnement. In social sciences, we used to consider the environnement as much as the person. So this page has also this aim, to remain in the 18th, people could became scientist when women were activ in the education. Because there were no schools. And because, men, with letterature wont organize themselves for children. Women did the link for that, they were central. So : I find Marie-Elisabeth has a full place in wikipedia by her own. For the reason why, research in that field progress (role of women in the Royalties times) in social sciences and this article can be developped in the future. We are more in a time where we find informations about women than in a time where we consider women are part of their husband life or "only mother". Be a mother is something, women who read wikipedia, can find as as much important than being politician. Because, there are so many ways to be mother than to be politician. And not all women dream to be politcian or artist or scientist. So my hypothesis, is, that more women would read wikipedia if there are more diversities in biographies as well. But of course, it is an hypothesis made because I studied social scientist, I used to consider feminists ideas. And in France there is wikipedia project quite activ, but I am not part of it directly, I follow it from far, it is called "the without pages" (les sans pages) where people create biographies of forgotten women. Marion (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to conclude : I really don't appreciate the method. I am very strict on that way even when I contribute in french wikipedia (my main activity anyway). When something hurt someone but, when that problem dont bring a real deficcience to the full project of wikipedia, a simple discussion inside the article page of discussion, would be enough to start a debate. Always bring deleting process to start a discussion is an abuse. If we do that, wikipedia dont increase, but decrease, more quickly than social sciences increase. So do whatever you want, I dont appreciate the way. Marion (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be expanded to say more about the subject. Nearly everything in the article currently is not about her - it is about her family, her husbands, and what happened with her bequest after she died. Marion Leconte, I take your point, but the Notability rules are the same for men and women - the question is whether there is enough material about her (not the people around her, but her) to support an article. At the moment it isn't there, but I will be happy to change my view if extra relevant material can be added.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for historical reasons. The article is richly sourced and explains her family relationships, her strong interest in the education of her sons, and the significant position she inherited.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as owner of the Falkenberg estate which she remodeled heavily. Axisstroke (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I proposed, maintaining my delete position. Regarding the Falkenberg estate, the expansion there can readily be described on the Falkenberg (Berlin) page (which is what is done over on .de). If family relationships are seen as important, these should should sit on the articles of one of the sons (or, indeed, why not for one of the husbands). Klbrain (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I maintain my arguments. I understand the point of view for deleting this article. But, in the reason of diversity, we need to accept, motherhood and planning education of children is important as much as people who organised wars, planned destructions or else. No place for her in her husband pages : they don't exist (if I dont mistake). Marion (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the motherhood and fatherhood and planning the educations is undisputable, but this isn't a good case study of any of these. The source that support Marie's maternal care for her children is a 19th century hagiography "The mothers of great men and women ...". The other key sources, Minguet (1969) has a quite different view (automated translation of paragraph 19 of 'Première période') Marie Elisabeth von Humboldt, was a haughty, cold woman who had little emotional relationship with her children. After the disappearance of her husband, who was a "...man of pleasant trade, of lively and cheerful conversation"... it is on the contrary, "... an atmosphere of compassed formalism and boredom created around her Madame de Humboldt mother". Klbrain (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is a personnal point of view (yours). But people spoke about her, she has a public notoriety and there is a picture in common, a category in common, an article in german, and 6 english spoken articles who mention her name. Wikipedia speaks about people who have been previously subject of books or studies, which is her case. Mothers, good in education, are not always warmfull. Education of today, principle of "love" (children's care) was not main stream at that time, I could add studies about that topic int this article, if the problem points there. Marion (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sourcing is sufficient to make Marie-Elisabeth independently notable from her sons, especially when taking German sources into account. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of precedents of parents deeply and actively involved in their children's' education and starting their careers - call it the well accepted Mama Rose exception. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former programs broadcast on TV Globo[edit]

List of former programs broadcast on TV Globo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST, lacks any sourcing whatsoever. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Lists, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a highly-common practice to split off older programming from the main page (i.e., List of programs broadcast by TV Globo). It does not need sourcing because it meets a basic WP:LISTPURP of a category turned into a list. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for the same reason explained by editor above (Why? I Ask). Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

73 Sects (Hadith)[edit]

73 Sects (Hadith) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail WP:GNG. Topic should not have a stand-alone article as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zsohl^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zsohl^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are countless hadiths. They are complicated, potentially speculative and certainly contested (see Hadith and Criticism of hadith). Giving this one its own article risks giving the topic undue weight. While I'm not sure this is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue (nor is it an indiscriminate inclusion of information, as the author has covered some commentary on the text), I agree it is not appropriate for a standalone article. Local Variable (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm actually seeing quite a lot of reliable sources on Google Scholar and Google Books discussing this particular hadith, many of which refer to it as being particularly famous (e.g. here, here). I think this easily meets notability guidelines. There are a lot of hadith, but this one seems to have had particular cultural impact -- and I note that we do have pages on individual bible chapters.— Moriwen (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 73 Sects should merit a standalone article. Dawn has a detailed 11 year old article on The mystery of 73 sects. There appears a nice journal article, The Influence of the 73 Sects Ḥadīth on the Classification of Theological Sects in Islamic Heresiographical Literature, and another one, Ibn Taymiyyah on the Hadith of the 73 Sects, and a book, that adds on more to this. This much should help pass basic WP:GNG. However, the article does require some work. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly covered in secondary scholarly literature as a standalone subject of note that has influenced the theology and culture. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This hadith of the 73 sects clearly meets the notability guidelines outlined in WP:GNG. Scholarly articles like "The Influence of the 73 Sects Ḥadīth...] " and news pieces like "The mystery of 73 sects" as mentioned by other editors and according to my findings demonstrate its significance within Islamic discourse. Similar to individual chapters of the Bible having dedicated articles, this hadith's particular cultural impact justifies its standalone presence on Wikipedia.GAGIWOR (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion. I haven't heard it by this name and number, but the debate about which sect is true and will get you into Heaven is a well-known concept, even to educated non-Moslems like me. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish International Connection of New York[edit]

Jewish International Connection of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is one of many Jewish Associations but I cannot find anything particularly notable about it. Suggest delete unless significant events or connections can be found. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hafnia Chamber Orchestra[edit]

Hafnia Chamber Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any references to the Orchestra after 2012 - and the earlier ones are merely passing references to its existence. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is sufficient sourcing in the article, though if there are no references past 2012, the tense of the article can simply be changed from "is" to "was". desmay (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has gone on international tour so satisfies WP:NMUSIC. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is little additional sourcing that I could find beyond what is already in the article. Danish newspaper archives should have more sources, especially if it's been defunct for a decade but that needs better search techniques (and/or better Danish) than I have to identify them. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdriPSX[edit]

AdriPSX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable PlayStation emulator. Lack of SIGCOV. I tried to PROD, but can't becuase a PROD was attempted in 2009. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG completely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No SIGCOV exists at all. Only shady download reposting websites. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here-[11] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many sources on Google and some are in Hari Singh Nalwa. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources in the page Hari Singh Nalwa pertaining to this battle are reliable. Could you list specific sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability rather than referring to nebulous sources on Google? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources in Hari Singh Nalwa are Sharma's IJR source which cannot be used on Wikipedia, a source published by the Sikh Missionary College-[12], an organization judging by its nomenclature and website meant only to propagate the Sikh religion; by no means is this a salient educational institution nor has it published any peer reviewed books or journals. The last source is a Google snapshot-[13], again from a organization that publishes hagiographies as opposed to rigorous scholarly works. The book cannot even be found anywhere on the Internet apart from that Google snippet. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova (Valery Leontiev song)[edit]

Casanova (Valery Leontiev song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Russian song. The article currently has one reference: YouTube with Leontiev's performance.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage online of this song to warrant it having it's own page InDimensional (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Masekesa[edit]

Vincent Masekesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to fail WP:GNG, and with no lists of Zimbabwean cricketers there's no suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as notability was established. (non-admin closure)‎ Lenny Marks (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz[edit]

Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article was previously nominated under the name Museo Interactivo Kaná. The result was no-consensus with paltry participation. In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG. There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name. The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted. Lenny Marks (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Coverage in news sources here: [14], [15], [16] (and more. A google news search for: [museo interactivo Xalapa] catches the various different names of this institution). It also appears as an attraction of the city in guide books: [17]. Furius (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Furius has identified enough sources to show notability. The Mexican Government entry gives information that could be used to expand the article. A search on images confirms that this is a substantial museum discussed by many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Furius @Aymatth2, thank you for collecting additional sources for the article. The problem I found was that the news sources are generally lacking wp:sigcov (One mentions that protesters were outside the museum but doesn't discuss the institution itself at all, another's entire reference is that a minister discusses money in the budget for the museum and the last is almost an exact copy of a source that is already in the article [18] about workers being fired.) The guide book entry, though, might count.

Unless you disagree with my analysis of the sources individually, I guess the question becomes whether the several non-significant mentions collectively constitute SigCov here. Thoughts? --Lenny Marks (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is run by the State of Veracruz. The Mexico Government entry would count as reliable, independent and in-depth. I have not read the many news articles, but yes, 25 separate sources giving a paragraph each on some aspect or event of the museum would cumulatively count as significant in-depth coverage. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2 thanks, I had missed that link in your previous comment. I will add a reflist to the article and withdraw the nomination. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinashe Muchawaya[edit]

Tinashe Muchawaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail, and with no suitable lists to redirect to for Zimbabwean cricketers, there's no WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Styyx (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arka Sokaklar[edit]

Arka Sokaklar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable turksih tv series LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: No apparent WP:BEFORE and no clear rationale for the supposed lack of notability. See [19] and [20]. Arka Sokaklar is quite a well-known Turkish series that has been broadcast for a very long time. As can be seen through the links I provided, just a quick search of the name returns a plethora of publications, studies, and whatnot on the series. Aintabli (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Aintabli. While the state of the sourcing in the article is bad, there are plenty of reliable sources for the show. I would also look at the Turkish Wikipedia article on the show which is much better sourced.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no way it's not notable, it's one of the longest-running shows in Turkey.Tehonk (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn anyone can close. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (will pursue merger instead). (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnens adventskalender[edit]

Barnens adventskalender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article barely qualifies as notable, and could be summarized better here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sweden. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first installment in what would become a fairly important tradition in Swedish Christmas celebrations. As the radio advent calendar has been an annual tradition since 1957, I don't think it's a good idea to summarize each year in the main article. These are individual works, the content varying from year to year. /Julle (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable precursor to the current calendar, more sources are available. Notability is not at issue here. If you feel that merging this as a "backgound" section makes more sense I suggest you withdraw this nomination and propose a merger on the talk page per our usual procedures. Cheers. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reflecting on this, it may be a better move to do that, given we would want to save the content. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing to think about is that Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar is mainly a list of the individual annual programs. There were more than 60 annual editions of this show, and for the most part, each of them has their own Wikipedia page. It's probably possible to merge all of them together into the core page (or create a long "list of programs" page) but it's a bigger undertaking than just merging this first program into the series page. Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And for that reason among others I would probably !vote-oppose should a merger be proposed. I'm just being a stickler on procedure here :P Draken Bowser (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I really think it works best as a separate article, to be honest, with the Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar as an article about the phenomenon rather than as a collection of the individual instances which make up the tradition. /Julle (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "Barely qualifies as notable" is not a thing. If there's enough coverage to satisfy GNG, then it's notable. This nomination should provide some analysis of the existing sources in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Toughpigs and Julle. This is a separate work from the yearly tradition itself and 'barely notable' is still notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per coverage. Per WP:GNG. Personally I find this nomination weird.BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barely notable still is notable. Killarnee (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep procedurally. If a merger is the ultimate goal, then AfD is the wrong place for it. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Umar Arshad[edit]

Sheikh Umar Arshad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails to meet relevant WP:POLITICIAN as well basic WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. It literally says, "local politician", without any allegation of notability based on the position. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircoasters[edit]

Aircoasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to satisfy even the bare minimum of pictures or discussion to meet WP:V, let alone notability BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Might as well not exist for all the sources that are available (none). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Green brothers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hank & John[edit]

Dear Hank & John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Looks to me like WP:GNG just isn't met here. A 2016 AfD resulted in keep based on no credible assertions of GNG-contributing sources. The three that were brought contain no significant discussion of the subject, and as it stands eight years later, there still isn't much media attention on this podcast, and the article's never outgrown largely being based on primary, non-independent sources. If someone finds something I didn't on a WP:BEFORE, awesome, but I don't see it out there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vlogbrothers Green brothers. I agree with the assessment in NOM - Hank Green and John Green, the podcast's hosts, are clearly notable and have extensive secondary coverage. Vlogbrothers has less coverage, but enough to be notable, and seems like the best article to cover collaborations between the two - this podcast is arguably an extension of that channel. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Vlogbrothers is specifically their Youtube channel; I would suggest Green brothers as a merge target. Radagast (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that would be a better merge target, I was unaware of its existence. BrigadierG (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the show passes WP:NPODCAST and WP:GNG. There are sources in Vulture, Erie Reader, Mashable, and Tampa Bay Times. I'm not a huge fan of listicles, however, these are more than a short reprint of the show's description with each article's coverage coming in at about 200 words. I would generally consider that more than a trivial mention. There are a few shorter ones out there in sources like LifeHacker, The Skinny, and The Hindu. Some might consider these enough (i.e. WP:100WORDS). There were also a few articles announcing their partnership with WNYC Studios in Variety, Vulture, and TubeFilter. This article in Audacy, Inc.'s Podsauce is decent coverage, however, I'm not sure what the consensus on the source's reliability is. I would be interested in hearing what others think of Podsauce. WP:NPODCAST mentions that being on a chart is an indicator of notability. On chartable.com, the show is currently No. 7 on the Philosophy category for the United States and No. 3 in Canada. According to itunescharts.net, the show reached No. 2 on Apple's Podcast chart in 2015. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The four sources here are somewhat more than a short description, but I'm still not honestly sure that you could get a decent-shape article out of these sources. They all seem pretty thin, as capsule reviews tend to be. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron: fair enough. What do you think about the reliability of Podsauce? The main thing that jumps out to me is that these reviews don't have bylines, but book reviews on websites like Publishers Weekly don't either and I would generally consider PW reliable for reviews. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  no bylines does throw me – I also can't find evidence of an editorial staff, though, and I don't think PW sells books (whereas audacy looks like a podcast platform). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did some more searching and I really thought I would find more than I did. I found a 125 word piece in the The Courier-Mail via ProQuest 2108160325. I also found a few different articles in student news such as these: [21], [22], [23], [24] And another announcement about partnering with WNYC Studios: [25] Changing my !vote to a weak support to merge the article into the Green brothers. I'd be willing to perform the merge myself if no one else wants to. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BrigadierG JoshuaAuble (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Digital Radio Testing Service[edit]

Advanced Digital Radio Testing Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing sources which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I don't even think it's worth redirecting. This could have been PROD'd to save AFD effort in my opinion. BrigadierG (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article should be deleted. The subject of the article hasn't existed for many years. Utuado (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baking a Dream: The Theobroma Story[edit]

Baking a Dream: The Theobroma Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. As the article exists, the only source is an excerpt from the book and a plot that's probably copied straight from the back page. A WP:BEFORE check found one source from The Hindu that may be helpful - [26]. It's not really a review, more of an interview but it's at least better than what's currently there. I don't think it's enough to meet NBOOK though. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps redirect to an article about the two women or about the cafe, with the same name as the book. [27], scattered hits in Indian media about the pair, that mentions the book in passing... Thoughts? Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional Article for a restaurant chain. WP:PROMO ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPAM. The first source seems ok, but the second is a first-person entitled interview, which isn't. In 2024, eveybody knows we are not Pinterest or Etsy. I don't see significant coverage in independent sources, but ping me if you find something better and add it to the page. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article seems like it was made to promote the book. The plot seems overly promotional.Sk1728 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusz Latkowski[edit]

Mariusz Latkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Original nomination statement: I couldn't find any significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. All news that came up in my searches are passing mentions (TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 2010; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised nomination statement as of 13 March 2024: Despite having achieved two medals, I couldn't find enough significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches are brief mentions (TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 14 years; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Poland. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Doesn't look very notable to me; won't be deleted from pl wiki where participation in Olympics grans notability, unlike here. Shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject is a multiple-time international medallist in athletics and is covered by both Polish and English sources; see [28] for coverage in just one Polish newspaper. WP:ATD: Redirect to 1999 European Athletics Junior Championships where the athlete won his highest medal. --Habst (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the nomination statement was edited in Special:Diff/1213511699. It's fine to edit it, but I think it is fair to note the changes made in the discussion because the nomination is in part what we are responding to. --Habst (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Catch me if I'm wrong, but doesn't winning international medals automatically give a pass at AfD? Bearian (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Senior medals, maybe. These were underage medals, from competitions with dramatically less stadium attendance, TV time and overall media attention. However, a relatively small athletics meet might still generate more coverage than a relatively big competition in, say, canoeing Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because "automatic notability" doesn't exist as part of WP:NSPORT. It's a guideline that "significant coverage is likely to exist", but for some people meeting the criteria (which this one doesn't anyway), there may not be that coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. ✗plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZRH Hataw[edit]

DZRH Hataw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced since 2018. No awards or any good supporting references from GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced Although we generally don't keep radio show articles, this has a programming list to redirect to as a good ATD. Nate • (chatter) 16:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we can consider redirecting, the topic should be mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: clarified that Radyo Hataw is the televised adaptation/simulcast of DZRH Hataw in proposed target article. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This is not a "Keep" closure, this is not a "Delete" closure, this is a "No consensus" closure because I find no consensus here among editors. Many editors arguing for Delete cite a 2018 RFC decision but I found a number of discussions about policy on having articles with tables of airline destinations including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (which concerns Airport articles but on the same subject of tables of airline destinations) which leave a definitive "All" decision impossible, at least for me. Also an "All" decision assumes that the quality of articles is identical or near identical among the nominated articles and it's not clear that is the case here.

Additionally, I haven't done a head count but I believe there are more editors weighing in here in this AFD than editors who participated in most of these past RFCs trying to establish a policy precedent. The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion? I don't know but there are clearly a large number of editors who disagree with its conclusion. Secondly, there are enough editors voicing a preference for Merge that an outright Delete All closure would prevent any Merge from occurring. I also think this difference of policy interpretation is unreconcilable and no additional relists would help reach a firmer consensus. I fully realize that this closure will make all participating editors in this AFD unsatisfied and it is almost certain to go to Deletion review but someone had to close this discussion and so I bit the bullet.

I'm sure that whether this closure was Delete All, Keep All, Merge or No consensus, this AFD would end up at Deletion review given the division of opinion here so I advise those who are invested in this subject to go to DRV and argue whether or not this closure was appropriate. If you believe that the 2018 RFC should be reviewed 6 years later, you can take up that project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Airways destinations[edit]

List of British Airways destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following 152 lists with the same problems:

Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists for deletion in an orderly manner and recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. Since then, 24 AfDs have resulted in the deletion of more than 260 lists. I feel it's time to have a few final AfDs on the remaining lists.

The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.

I am not including the other 34 stand-alone lists of airline destinations in this nomination because those include some prose that has to be copied over to the parent article first. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Scotland, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, and Hawaii. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I see no reason for these pages to exist. Athel cb (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That you alone see no reason for them to exist does not discount the purpose others see in these pages. Simply disregard those tabs if they aren't relevant to you, but there is no other database that hosts all this information as clearly as Wikipedia. Should it be removed from here, it quite literally will not be found elsewhere. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all in accordance with the 2018 RfC and the various WP:NOT violations (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc.). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles are not in violation of WP:NOT in the slightest. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2018 RfC should not have been binding. It was the consensus of far too few people who essentially ended up speaking for the grand majority of the internet, many of which would prefer this information remain on Wikipedia as is. If today, there was a new RfC, it's very possible a far different verdict would have been reached. An RfC from that long ago should not be invoked today, nor should a small discussion like that have set a precedent for the future. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and previous precedent. Yilloslime (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's hard to argue for most of these, which are just simple lists of destinations. I think many of these could be notable with some prose, for instance the British Airways is not a simple destination list but catalogues everywhere the airline has flown, including terminated routes, and is well sourced, which I do think is indeed encyclopaedic given the airline's international scope. All we need are sources discussing airline routes, which are indeed covered in reliable sources! The fact we would include terminated destinations doesn't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, either. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also incorrectly used here - these lists are by their very nature discriminate, because they have a fixed scope. Most of these fail WP:NOT only because most of them are simple listings that haven't been put into context, and I think the lead AfD article - British Airways - at least comes close to putting these into context if it doesn't already. Perhaps there are others as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Indiscriminate: not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." No careful judgment is involved in the selection of destinations. All the cities on an airline's route map are included simply because it flies there as of March 2024, and even if it flew to some random city from 1981 to 1985, that destination also gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you're deleting every single list on this website. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  History of British Airways appears to be a comprehensive, well-researched article. It discusses some noteworthy services, e.g. the Concorde flight to New York and the Shuttle service to various British cities. However, the notion that this context (or a similar one for any other airline) can be used to justify the listing of every single destination of this carrier ever since it was established in 1974, is something I do not follow. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per past AFDs and RFC consensus. There are also different Wiki systems available across the web to to maintain such lists. Coastie43 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per 2018 RFC. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep Curious what this means in juxtaposition to the airport article destination tables that had its own comprehensive RfC that resulted in the lists being kept. WP:ALD for years guided us about composing lists, and the very statement put there now links us to an RfC that more or less has arguments listed in favor of keeping the lists. Does this mean, for example, that Wikipedia will eventually delete the fleet sections/lists that include current/former aircraft types operated if someone, some time from now, decides that aircraft types are advertising to the airlines, and that an airline simply operating an aircraft type is not a "careful judgement involved in selection"? Or that airport destination tables will be deleted next? What about the lists for airlines that have gone defunct, such as Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines whose lists were specifically not changing by nature from being historic, and could not possibly be used as a travel guide? There were arguments for the latter to be kept, but with the volatile nature of airlines' starting up and shutting down, how does it then only make sense to build a list for an airline that is defunct but not when it is existing prior to that? Editors are often told or reverted on in various ways about how to do something at one time with a certain guideline convenient for the sake of that person's argument, and then later told that they weren't supposed to be editing in the first place because of that person's conveniently-used argument, where the two contradict each other and the editor is at the mercy of either in an illusion of choice. It sounds as though with the direction this is going, there will be less and less reason to do any editing for airlines, airports, or aviation in general on Wikipedia. ChainChomp2 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate; this proposal, the RfC it was based on, and a previous RfC/AfD that initially deleted 400+ lists (which included airlines both active and defunct, which would obviously have varying levels of maintenance but were both treated with the "needs to be constantly updated" reasoning, as well as two featured lists...I can't find it, but recall reading through it in case it rings a bell) would set a dangerous precedent and slippery slope that would eventually discourage any and all editing for airlines and aviation, by their very nature of being volatile and rapidly changing. Similar proposals to remove airport destination tables were also attempted but ultimately the tables were kept, even in the exhaustive manner that they are today. Why shouldn't we keep airline destination lists for similar reasons that we kept airport destination lists? Who is to say that an airline's list of destinations will be the last type of content to be discouraged and disallowed for reasons that somehow did not apply to airport destination tables, of which were more numerous than those of airlines? An airline's very operational status, types of aircraft in its fleet, company executives, business trends, and financial performance are all things that change, yet are also chronologically documented (in varying degrees).

I am also changing my stance to a "keep" vote, but would be open to merging into the main articles, if even hidden under a drop-down like the list in the proposal. I personally did this for Norse Atlantic Airways where I spun off the list as its own article once it reached a certain length (as guidelined by WP:ALD at the time), then the list was deleted (yet I was curious why other lists that I worked on to an equal format and degree of referencing were retained, namely Avelo, Breeze, and Play, which are now among those listed in this proposal), so it was merged into the main article, then deleted again. ChainChomp2 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This reasoning is simply going off of the precedent a small & irrelevant poll conducted years ago concluded. That these articles would require too much maintenance & frequent revision is not enough of a reason to delete them, as there have been completely competent & well-educated individuals who have taken it upon themselves to ensure these pages are always the most up to date & accurate versions of themselves they can be. Wikipedia is the only database in the entire internet that is incredibly easily accessible for this information. Airlines themselves don't even have as comprehensive & clear databases as Wikipedia's. This information remains relevant to many on the internet & that few disagree with their existence on Wikipedia is not reason enough to delete them. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• These tables are not an establishment of a newsfeed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where facts are stored. If today, there is a scientific discovery proving a past theory (that may currently be up on Wikipedia) incorrect, updating that previous theory to align with true fact is not reporting breaking news, rather providing an incredibly simple yet incredulously needed update to keep information on Wikipedia factual, staying true to its nature of being an encyclopedia. If these tables are the establishment of a newsfeed, then the grand majority of Wikipedia's content should be removed as there is much information within this encyclopedia that should be changed for it to remain a factual, credible source of accurate & concise information. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, Wikipedia should not be documenting all the periodic changes in airline schedules, e.g. the fact that British Airways will resume seasonal service to Izmir on 18 May 2024, or that Sun Country Airlines will start flying to Boise on 19 June 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And why not? It's encyclopedic that Izmir and London are connected, or that Boise is connected to wherever that flight will go. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are Fan Wiki sites that are now available for the airline fans to establish their own Wiki for who wish to keep an updated list of destinations for their airlines. Whilst there's been arguments in the numerous past AFDs why the information breaches on WP:NOT, such a suggestion of moving such lists to a dedicated fan wiki could be useful, where they can also list the exact date of service, the exact aircraft type and so forth on the dedicated fan wiki, which at this stage wouldn't be suited on the Wikipedia. Coastie43 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. (eg: the case of the history of British Airways to ChainChomp2's point). Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are cited I propose the correct action is to adhere to WP:SS editing guideline and WP:AVOIDSPLIT by moving any standalone lists back into their respective (all are associated by name already) historical airline page under a heading similar to: historical destinations.DigitalExpat (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To further expand/clarify my opinion - I continue to agree with the points and proposed potential solutions to improve Wikipedia's information as described by: @ChainChomp2. (and well worded objectivity by @SportingFlyer ) I would also support a Merge solution as a psuedo reversing of WP:AVOIDSPLIT.

  To attempt to be more Objective and facilitate productive discourse here, I would like to opine there hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD. I'd like to restate the current proposal for deletion and address them, it stands to completely remove cited, structured, encyclopedic articles because:

  1 - "The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections[...]" - Can this be explained more? I'm checking the list now for all listed criteria and I don't see the connection here:

  a) "Summary-only descriptions of works"

  b) "Lyrics databases"

  c) "Excessive Listings of Unexplained Statistics"

  d) "Exhaustive Logs of Software Updates"

  2 - (slippery slope argument) The articles are a "equivalent of looking at the airline's route map" - Explicitly not the case for most of these (properly maintained) lists, route maps do not discuss past/future routes that form a history and detailed description of this specific topic (Airline X)

  3 - and "listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services [WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of WP:NOTCATALOG - it cites WP:LISTCRIT which the lists are well suited for based on WP:CSC. And if it is referring to "company's services", a list of flights no longer operated by a carrier is hardly advertising or promoting sales.

  4. - "[...] or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24" - I don't see flight schedules mentioned in these lists, rather than destinations served at some point, defining and supporting the history and notability of the airline itself. Two entirely different lists and purposes and not served by flight schedule aggregators.

  5 - "[...]If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates" To have lists covering decades of operation, describing and defining the airline through its services is hardly a newsfeed and doesn't meet any of the 4 points of WP:NOTNEWS, I would suggest showing current active destinations is strongly aligned the opening line of: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage

  While WP:AFDDISCUSS reminds us that WP is not a democracy/majority vote does not determine if an article is to be deleted or not, I think the more open discourse before it can be agreed that the removal of well cited, structured, encyclopedic knowledge and information from Wikipedia is the right action to improve Wikipedia. Currently I personally don't believe this litmus test has been achieved to date. DigitalExpat (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I'll bite. I vehemently disagree that there "hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD". I'm also concerned that your critique zooms in on specific lines of the policy text. Fundamentally we are governed by the five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into WP:PAGs, but consensus is king whether it has been codified or not. The only thing consensus can't do is to establish procedurs clearly against non-negotiable principles (projects that do may attract attention over at meta).

  What I'm getting at is that those of us who haven't said more than "NOT" or "NOTCATALOGUE" are not just arguing that these articles are prohibited by the policy, but rather that they constitute "indiscriminate [collections] of information" and are outside a scope described as analogous to "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (quoting the first pillar). That this is the correct interpretation of our "constitution" was decided in the RfC (the open discourse you call for already happened six years ago), and as I've stressed before some form of centralized discussion outside the scope of this AFD would be required to overturn that decision. Proponets of inclusion would be wise to explain clearly why these types of lists are actually within the scope of our mission of creating an encyclopedia. Stating that the information is verified, interesting or even citing individual lines of policy text does not cut it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with the close of that discussion is that there was agreement these broadly violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was the result of the close. I think that as written, an article like List of Icelandair destinations does present simple listings without context, and that most of these articles from 2018 were similar to that one - just a table with a list. I think most of us would agree it's difficult to see how List of TWA destinations is useful as written, and that those two examples violate WP:NOT. However, I think that can be clearly remedied for many of these airlines through prose - List of Belavia destinations isn't great, but it at least has started to provide context for the places where an airline flies, which is essentially necessary for understanding an airline's scope in an encyclopaedic manner - I do have at least a couple books, now in storage, which talks about airline fleets and destinations from a pre or early internet time, showing it's clearly within the scope of a "specialised encyclopedia." The other problem is WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often substituted for WP:IDLI - the sole problem here is that the information isn't properly contextualised. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the problem is the other way around, that it is not actually clear where to draw the line on content for a project analogous to "specialized encyclopedias", especially with respect to these lists, hence the division. But wherever there is uncertainty as to the interpretation of the principles the wider community gets to decide where that line is drawn. If the argument is that the lists could hypothetically be something else it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals (to show what it would look like), but this is a volunteer project and no one is required to. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals – List of Braathens destinations (not included in this AfD), which is a former featured list, might be an example. It has a detailed history section and notes the start and stop dates of all destinations. However, one of the reasons it was demoted was that the history section largely repeats prose in the parent article. I would add that the presence of that prose does not change the fact that the list goes against WP:NOTDB. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The list mentioned also has the effect of an encyclopedia, and the reasons for deletion aren't logical, instead, it is related to destroying all pages. As commented by DigitalExpat, removing the page directly violates Wikipedia's rules and goals. Other pages with other languages, like Korean, don't remove the pages. Instead, they update the page to provide detailed, updated information to members and non-members (ex. visitors). same opinion as DigitalExpat, it needs to move any standalone lists back into their respective to preserve and update all the mentioned pages. And it is the right way to keep the Wikipedia's rules. KorFlyer88 (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the "notes"-sections among other things prove that this is not merely a list of historic destinations, but exactly the kind of list which consensus has determined is disallowed according to NOT. This AFD does not have the authority to overrule that RfC due to CONLEVEL. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Draken Bowser! In case your response was referring to my comment, just wanted to help clarify that I was referring to the lists of historic destinations in some of these article proposed for deletion (eg: BA destinations list), not reopening the RfC discussions that were cited. (These encyclopedic entries of historic destinations should be returned to their parent articles' sections about airlines' histories (in BA's case an entire sub article under Wikipedia:Summary style dedicated to it) which is different than maintaining active lists etc...), This proposed AfD is to delete all information, including historic destinations which is not addressed by the RfCs, cheers! DigitalExpat (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, there is nothing about the BA list that suggests it is a historic exposé. It is not framed as such in the lead. There is the "notes" section, which lists whether the route is currently operational or not. Lastly, it would need to contain some basic historic facts, such as the first year the route was flown. In its current format it constitutes a violation of NOTDIRECTORY. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Draken Bowser, I want to inform you that five of the lists I included in this nomination (Aeroperú, Air New Zealand, Avelo, Breeze, and Play) do mention when the destinations began and ended. However, I still consider them to be indiscriminate collections of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Some of these articles have very extensive sourcing. I have spent countless hours over many years finding reliable sources for each entry for former cities that were once served by airlines in the past. This is why I'm trying to make improvements to Wikipedia to benefit the public at large. These lists have a lot of historical information combined together that you cannot find anywhere else. CHCBOY (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The few destinations which are particularly notable for some reason or other can be mentioned in the airline articles Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant point mentioned in an RfC for removing airport destination tables (and there are far more airport articles with their own lists than there were airlines with destination lists) was that if one tries to describe a few "notable" destinations with prose, who determines which or how many are "notable" and how many aren't? The contention in and of itself would lead to edit wars, or alternatively, once some destinations are described with prose, the full list isn't that far away. ChainChomp2 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have already done this quite well in the respective parent articles. Note how the Air India article incorporates destinations such as Trivandrum and Nairobi into the wider history of the airline, or how the Drukair page discusses the route to Gaya. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a travel agency for Airline List of destinations and such lists do not belong here. RangersRus (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]