Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:05, 3 December 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 02	December 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella García-Manzo

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

Other than the 2023 pageant, there is no evidence for notability. It is very likely that the page was created/edited for self-promotion. TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and El Salvador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a feature article about her in Vogue and several other news outlets. She meets the requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although these sources still need to be added to the article, WP:NEXIST instructs the retention of articles such as this because "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Rublamb (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Rublamb, would you mind sharing those sources here so we can analyze them? Would like to take a look at them. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:: Here you go. Some may be worthless, but I am sure of the top few. Rublamb (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on significance of press coverage alone, seems notable enough for me. Mistamystery (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salvadoran Isabella García-Manzo reappears and talks about her participation in Miss Universe 2023 (Vogue--cover story)
Miss El Salvador 2023 Isabella García-Manzo reaparece renovada e impactante en portada de revista (People)
Isabella García-Manzo, hostess with renewed style (La Prensa Grafica)
Royal! Isabella García Manzo shows her new image on social networks (Ella)
Isabella García Manzo, Miss Universe El Salvador whose triumph has been criticized (The Herald)
El Salvador and the appointment of the most beautiful women Miss El Salvador Isabella García-Manzo looks spectacular in Miss Universe (Washington Hispanic)
Miss El Salvador in danger of being sanctioned for committing a foul (La Prensa)
Isabella García-Manzo is Miss El Salvador 2023 (VOS TV)
Miss El Salvador 2023 Sparks Intense Reaction With Surprising Win Over Popular Rival (US Daily Report)
After several days in Spain, Isabella García-Manzo returns to El Salvador (El Salvador.com)
Isabella García Manzo, Miss El Salvador, reappears on social networks with a radical change of look(El Salvador.com)
Isabella García-Manzo is crowned Miss El Salvador 2023 (TELEMUNDO)
Miss El Salvador Shocks Crowd at Miss Universe 2023 National Costume Show (Remezcla)
Miss Universe Host Country El Salvador Crowns Its Own Pageant Winner (Remezcla)
Isabella García-Manzo: Representing El Salvador with Glamour and Passion in Miss Universe (Breaking Latest News)
Miss Universe 2023: 10 Best Moments From The National Costume Show (Harpers Bazaar)
Who is Isabella García-Manzo, the representative of El Salvador in Miss Universe 2023 (AS US Latino)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue source doesn't count as it is an interview, and the other coverage posted has to do with the pageant itself. Thus, due to WP:BIO1E, I have to go with a Weak Delete on this one, but if coverage extending beyond the pageant can be found, I'd be willing to change my vote. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:INTERVIEWS says that interviews "can be considered as evidence of notability", especially when published in a reliable source. It is pretty compeling that this is the cover story of a major magazine. Rublamb (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to North Macedonia–Ukraine relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv

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

Most of the sources are not even about the embassy but merely confirm previous ambassadors. No indepth coverage of the actual embassy. Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, North Macedonia, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect and merge content to North Macedonia-Ukraine relations. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep/redirect/merge are three different outcomes, you can't ask for all 3. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I'm not though? In my experience, "keep as redirect" and a vote simply saying "redirect" mean the same thing. For "merge," what I mean is for the content of the Embassy article to be added into the relevant part of the relations article before blanking the page and adding the redirect (some editors usually just vote "merge" per WP:MERGE but I think that can be ambiguous (for AfD cases especially) hence the redirect portion of my vote). I've seen other editors make votes like mine above with no issue so don't see why this discussion would be any different. Hope my explanation above helps and please ping if there's anything else I can help with. Thanks! Dan the Animator 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Dan the Animator simply meant "merge", as that then results in a redirect which in turn, "keeps" the article's placeholder (and history). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Macedonia-Ukraine relations is a reasonable alternative as per other similar AfDs on embassys of questionable notability. The prose on the article is unsourced so i'd probably not be looking to suggest a merge. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Love (Karl Wolf song)

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

Rejected PROD, poorly sourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This [1] from a UAE newspaper reviews the song, seems RS. I'll keep looking Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It charted here in Canada was nominated for a Juno R&B award [2], notability is established. One source from the UAE describing the song, should be a weak keep... He released a bilingual version of the song [3] see page E11, it's only a few lines, but does mention the song. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSONG indicates charting songs may be notable and indeed sources have been found. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources presented above are sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines for songs. ~ Tails Wx 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

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

The result was redirect‎ to The CW Sports. Contention is that there's nothing to merge, if anyone disagrees with this they can rescue content from behind the redirect and merge editorially. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College Football on The CW

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

Unnecessary split. Can be covered at ACC on The CW (which might also be unnecessary) and The CW Sports. Only one line (about the Arizona Bowl) is different than coverage on The ACC on The CW article. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE, the information covered here can be seen in the main The CW Sports article. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Seems like thats what your proposing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The reason I'm not proposing a merge is that there is nothing to merge. It's a direct copy of ACC on The CW. Everything in this article already exists elsewhere. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The CW Sports. Maybe in the future this could get its own article, but not at this time as not enough standalone coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonson (disambiguation)

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

Jonson (name) exists. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jonson (name) is a surname article. Keeping a purely surname article would keep the given name entries at the disambiguation page, as well as other uses. (My personal opinion is to have separate given name and surname and disambiguation pages, when there are enough entries; there being enough for a surname page and disambiguation page in this case) - 65.92.247.90 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment though the feeling at the move discussion talk:Jonson (name) is to make Jonson a single page disambiguation page with the surnames and given names and other uses, which also need a histmerge from Jonson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and which would still need a redirect at Jonson (disambiguation) (so, if that happens, deletion is still not needed, rather conversion to a redirect) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - My sentiments exactly, make one and only one disambiguation page for Jonson. If Jonson Gallery is in that article, it will need to be a disambiguation page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jonson. When I accepted this page, I didn't see it already exists as Jonson (name).zoglophie^•talk• 06:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreeing with the proposal of single entry Jonson with names and surnames included. zoglophie^•talk• 06:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue to discuss this in the earlier discussion at Talk:Jonson (name)#Requested move 30 November_2023. (Procedural close) --Joy (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not really enough to support a disambiguation page. The title should be the name page, and anything that is not a human name should be handled in a hatnote or a see also. BD2412 T 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content is insufficient to justify a disambiguation page. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterina Pyatkina

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

The subject made a half-dozen appearances for the Kazakhstan women's national football team. All that comes up in my searches are passing mentions like 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of sources Svartner (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Leadership Network for Health and Social Care

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

Cannot find any evidence for existence of such a named organisation. There is an NHS Clinical Leaders Network but of course that is a different organisation with a different name.

The provided website does not work, although there is a website here but the name does not include "for Health and Social Care" and makes no mention of previously being the so-called "NHS Modernisation Board".

Hard to find any third-party sources verifiying the existance of this entitity.

Overall unclear if defunct and certainly non-notable and does not warrant article. Elshad (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and England. Elshad (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noumasseri Djimadoum

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. The subject made a single appearance for his respective national team. I am unable to find any coverage at all, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Protection Command. Daniel (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal protection officer

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

Not sure this term is sufficiently specific to warrant an article. "Personal protection officer" is a generic term that could apply anywhere in the English-speaking world. Some of the references are newspaper article where the writer may have just used it as a generic term.

I can find no statutory footing for this term or published material from the Met clearly demonstrating that this is a term specific to the Met.

Overall is a vague article. Elshad (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion - previously at AfD under another title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: frequent references to the term in mainstream media: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Unless there's a suitable merge target for this, we need it here. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Redirect to Protection Command, per MrSchimpf and Lightburst. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protection Command as a one-department concept that can be detailed in summary. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protection Command, there is room in the target article Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Reeths-Puffer Marching Band

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

High school marching bands are not notable and this appears to be no exception with routine local and non-independent or irrelevant sources. Bensci54 and I both redirected the page to be reverted by the creator. Both WikiOriginal-9 and Voorts declined AFD submission, not sure why Timtrent approved it in such a self-promotional and unencylopedically written/sourced form. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One has to love nominations with a bit of snark in them 😈. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If I was mistaken then I will learn from it If I was not then you will learn from it, But, whatever transpires, I really think you might learn not to be snarky when you nominate something for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really trying to be snarky, but I don't think there's a single other high school marching band article on Wikipedia for good reason. This is of interest only to participants and clearly fails WP:CLUB and the few independent sources fail WP:AUD. Even without an article for Reeths-Puffer High School, individual student groups at scondary schools are not something we need standalone pages for and virtually never pass AFD. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this one is unlikely to pass, too. But that is what AfD is for, and we shall still see what happens. If you weren't trying then snark came naturally. You were not lacking in civility, not exactly, but you get an A+ from me for what must be natural snarkiness. It is the article that you are nominating, not the reviewer. I'm perfectly content to have a mistake demonstrated to me, but I do prefer it to be demonstrated with no edge to the demonstration. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I noted in declining this at AfC, the only RS providing SIGCOV is the MLive article. I have been unable to find additional RSes via TWL or Google. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As someone deeply invested in the marching arts, from drum corps to winter guard, I can say for certain that no high school marching band in the world is notable. There is not enough coverage to sustain a completely independent page from the parent article. I oppose a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poor-quality promotional article with bad sourcing; band itself is not notable, and the search term seems rather unlikely to me. page creator seems obviously connected to the subject. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As one of the people who attempted to redirect this back to the article on the high school, I see no reason this article needs to exist. Bensci54 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the high school I attended 50 years ago won the 1920s version of a national high school band competition so many years in a row, they disbanded the contest and gave them the traveling trophy. The band director at the time was hired away by the University of Michigan where he was director of bands for over 20 years - and they are not notable. And it stands to reason that if the school itself is not notable, than an individual student activity wouldn't be either. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Redirect also. JBW (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Tarrant

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is simply a repeat of the information (and wording) in Christchurch mosque shootings. Brenton Tarrant is known for just one action and is neither famous nor noteworthy. It is unlikely that anyone would search for Brenton Tarrant without finding his name on the Christchurch page in which case they would already have all the information that is on this page.

Please note that this is the second time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first time was before any text had been added. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Tarrant.

Since this page is a redundant duplicate then I suggest Delete OrewaTel (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Terrorism, and New Zealand. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was a redirect to the event from February through June 2023, until and anon IP editor felt this perpetrator should get a stand-alone article. If there isn't enough true biographical depth, restoring that redirect would be in order. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage, source 22, 30 to 33 seem the best. Rest is added coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore REDIRECT – Known only for one event, where his involvement is sufficiently covered. All sources mention him only in connection with that event. There is nothing encyclopedic in this article that isn't covered in the main article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Entirely pointless duplication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, for the reasons given above. He is notable in connection with a single event and the significant content is already covered in the main article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect. WP:BLP1E applies here. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Cf. Martin Bryant and Anders Breivik, who have individual biographies even though separate articles exist about their crimes. However, some copy-editing could be done to minimize overlap between the biography and the crime article. Muzilon (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muzilon, WP:OTHERSTUFF, is not a reason to vote keeping. TarnishedPath^talk 03:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Then see WP:WHENSPLIT. The Christchurch mosque shootings article is currently over the 9,000 words/60 kB prose threshold,[8] suggesting that the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Muzilon (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Daveosaurus's comment below. I suggest the facts you highlight make a stronger argument for trimming, not for devoting more time and resources to this individual who's notability is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What material do you propose to remove from the Christchurch article? Muzilon (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Perpetrator, just a quick review of the first two paragraphs reveals material about his family life growing up that is irrelevant to the shooting and material about a visit to a hospital because of a gun accident that is again irrelevant to the shooting. 50% of those two paragraphs could be trimmed and consolidated into one paragraph. That's just a quick review. However, I don't edit that article so I'll leave that to the good judgement of people that do. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest those details are probably necessary background, and strengthen the case for WP:SPINOUT. Muzilon (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Anything sufficiently encyclopaedic about him belongs in that article anyway. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles about mass shootings generally do not need a separate article for the perpetrator, as it leads to problems with repetition and overlap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as he’s known for a single event only. Schwede 66 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Tarrant has no notability independent of his crimes, which are covered in another article. Zarenon (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's more or less a copy and paste from the main article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply too big of an event and impact on society, too many victims for him to not have his own page. Everyone one else anywhere near that kill count has there own page Genberg47 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC) — Genberg47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and redirect as this person is known only for a single event.Marshelec (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (software)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Tagged for notability (by me) since the page's creation in 2014, nothing has arisen to challenge that notion. Previously deleted through PROD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT. This page has already been deleted three times over the years, persistently recreated by likely COI editors. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Media Group

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

This is a company which appears to own six small radio stations in Northern Ireland. I can't see any reason why it needs its own article above and beyond the articles that deal with the individual stations themselves. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Tagged as unsourced since 2018.

Similar articles which simply list stations owned by a single-market radio owner have been deleted in recent months: [9] [10] [11] Flip Format (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Flip Format (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JVx (Framework)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open source project and I'm one of the developers. Which independent sources do you need for such an article? It's important for open source projects to have a wikipedia page to get more contributors and attention. We can't pay for ad words and if you don't have a big company behind the framework, it's important to get attention.

So, what do we need to keep the article? Rjahn (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Wikipedia:Notability (software) Mdggdj (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NSOFT. @Rjahn:, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, but this should have been done beofre you started editing the article. I appreciate the challenges of getting open source projects going, but Wikipedia is not free advertising space to drum up support for it. What is needed for the page to be included in Wikipedia is significant independent coverage. Your participation in editing that page, as a related party, only harms its chances of surviving this process. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sources for NSOFT. SWinxy (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 1st Winter Children of Asia International Sports Games

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

Non-notable figure skating event full of an endless sea of red-linked participants... Even the overarching event (the "Winter Children of Asia International Sports Games") doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, the main event itself isn't notable, this specific event even less so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Svartner (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Most Beautiful Transsexual Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. A 2006 AfD closed as no consensus but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Nevada. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only news coverage I could find was a cursory mention in Las Vegas Weekly, which is hardly a RS to begin with. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was held once, 20 yrs ago, and nothing has appeared since. That Las Vegas Weekly article is the only coverage there is. Not enough coverage for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this using ProQuest. It's quite long, but manages to say very little about the actual pageant. Unless something more surfaces, it'll have to be a delete from me.

Padgett, S. (2004, Jul 29). ONE-OF-A-KIND CONTEST: Head-turners: [final edition]. Las Vegas Review - Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/one-kind-contest-head-turners/docview/260152880/se-2

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but we'd need one more like that (at least) for it to be a !keep from me. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source linked above provides not a whole lot of coverage and is from a local news outlet (Las Vegas Review-Journal), which could indicate it's just routine coverage, but maybe not. If there was more coverage, even from local sources, I would not be opposed to keeping it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG, not notable topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom --Devoke water 22:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Staniforth

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography which does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The are has only three sources. Two of them have incomplete information to ascertain whether they are books or articles about the subject, or merely a listing in some directory. The only linked source is simply a picture of a medallion which does not contribute to notability. I found nothing in Google to determine notability. NOTE: Previously nominated for deletion in 2018. Flibirigit (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I found a listing for William Staniforth on "The Staniforth Society" web site, but I do not consider this to be an independent third pary, but rather seems to be operated by the same person who created this Wikipedia article. Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't really my area of expertise however I added a few more sources including one from the The London Medical and Surgical Journal, there seems to be various mentions in publications from years gone by.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Gbooks, this in particular [12] is a good start. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todbowyer (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC) — Todbowyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of California, Irvine (selectively as per Owen). Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Irvine student housing

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

This is a two-parter. First, with an exception covered in part 2, below, there's no sign of notability of the housing system of the University of California, Irvine, outside of publications by the University of California, Irvine, and statistical data and lists of available apartments from Irvine. There's no more independent notability here than there is for the housing systems of most schools. In addition, the vast majority of the information given isn't encyclopedic anyway. It belongs in the student handbook. Nobody outside the community is going to care which eateries are covered by the student meal plan or that "many Mesa residents find it a treat, worthy of their time, to walk to Pippins and Brandywine just to eat!"

Second, there used to be an article titled Middle Earth Housing about one housing complex at UCI that received some attention when its buildings were named for places in Tolkien's works. An AFD was created for that article. The outcome was the merger of that article into this one. That was unfortunate because if any aspect of UCI housing is notable, it's specifically the Middle Earth housing. If anything other than deleted, this article should be rid of just about everything not related to Middle Earth housing and then moved to Middle Earth Housing; or else this article should be deleted and that article restored and updated. Largoplazo (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Largoplazo (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up request: If you !vote for "Merge", please clarify whether you mean merge the Middle Earth Housing material into Middle Earth Housing or merging anything useful into University of California, Irvine. Largoplazo (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section about Middle Earth Housing into University of California, Irvine. The rest is non-notable, poorly sourced, and reads like OR. Owen× ☎ 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, but obviously delete the rest. It feels like WP:ADVERTISEMENT mixed with WP:OR. It's a huge issue when it comes to college students who want to spread pretty helpful information online, but are unaware of the policies that govern Wikipedia. Conyo14 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Its an advertisement right now. Lorstaking (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept, but moved to Grand Canyon Trophy Game, shifting focus to the regular series of games played, rather than the question of whether a notable rivalry exists. BD2412 T 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Rivalry

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

This doesn't appear to meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of in depth, secondary coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. The article was deleted under a different name in 2014 and recreated [[13]], but as it stands the current article seemingly fails in the same areas the previous one did. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arizona, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the game has a trophy and the article has good sourcing. A notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, as Wikipedia articles on the subject of rivalries don't have to only focus on major college games (Ohio-Michigan, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done any digging yet, but none of the sources currently in the article represent WP:SIGCOV (i.e, in-depth coverage of a rivalry). Three of the five sources are clearly non-independent (published by the universities or the conference), and I don't believe FBSchedules.com has ever been recognized as a reliable, GNG-bestowing source. (The first two sources are reliable and independent but don't have real depth of coverage about the rivalry.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was previously deleted in 2014. Joeykai (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My source analysis is set forth in my earlier comment, and noothing else has been presented. I voted "Delete" at the 2014 AfD on this trophy, and nothing has changed materially. There is still a lack of SIGCOV wih in-depth coverage about the trophy or rivalry -- just some passing references in game coverage to the fact that the winner gets the trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if this were a close case where there was some SIGCOV, other factors such as geographic proximity, the trophy, and competitiveness would weigh in favor of keeping, but I haven't seen anything that could be called SIGCOV here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but we have categorization and framing problems across a lot of articles like this. As a series of annual games with a name (whether it has a trophy is irrelevant), this appears to pass GNG, and would probably be better as Grand Canyon Trophy Game and rewritten to make it clear it is an annual series of games, instead of us claiming it is actually a sports rivalry. What's happened here is that this and several other things have "rivalry" in their names and are a class of things that are sometimes called "rivalry games", but they are not sports rivalries as WP and most sources are using that term. That is, "rivalry" is ambiguous, and writers of this article have confused one meaning with the other just because of the term being used in the name or being used in vague, amgiguous ways by some source material. A "rivaly game" is simply a periodic game (usually a form of exhibition game) between two teams for the entertainment of themselves and their fans, or occasionally as part of some league system but given a name and sometimes a trophy as a promotional mechanism.
The entire Category:Big Sky Conference rivalries and probably several others like it has completely confused the idea of such a game series with the idea of an actual sports rivalry: a subculture of animosity or faux-animosity between two teams/institutions and especially the fandoms thereof, a rivalry that has a life of its own and garners source coverage unto itself as a social phenomenon, not as promotional lingo used by coaches or athletic department administrators, not just passing use of "rivalry" as a word in routine game coverage, and not simply a game or game series name that happens to have "Rivalry" in it. This article sipmly has not been properly framed as an article on a series of games (which is what the subject is) instead of a sports rivalry (which it is not in any sense that is notable or what Wikipedia should care about).
The whole category structure relating to this stuff needs to be cleaned up so that exhibition games are classified as such and no longer classified as "rivalries". And lots of these articles need to be rewritten. E.g., to pick one at random, Beehive Bowl (which was quite properly moved away from Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry in 2016, but was never rewritten) misleadingly opens with "The Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry, known as the Beehive Bowl, is the annual football game between Southern Utah University and Weber State University"; clearly this is about an annual game series, not about a sports fan subculture of rivalry. The article has ridiculous WP:OR in it, like "In 2011, Southern Utah joined the Big Sky Conference, making it a yearly rivalry." Two teams coming into competition with each other by being in the same conference or other league system does not make them "rivals" (any more than any other two competitors in any sport are "rivals").
While AfD can make a few dents in the problem by picking off articles that claim to be about rivalries that don't have sufficient sourcing to exist as articles no matter how the content is reframed and renamed and recategorized, a more systematic approach is needed for dealing with the mess that has been created, because a lot of these articles on named series of games have been mis-written as rivaly articles, as if they are something like Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, which they demonstrably are not. I'm not even sure where best to address this. The issue seems most common in American college football, but actually crosses sport and national lines. Maybe WT:SPORT is the place? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
College football rivalry games are not exhibition games. They are usually regular season games. On rare occasions, rivals may also play in post-season bowl or playoff games. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Even if one views the article as being about the trophy, I am not seeing SIGCOV about the tropy. Did you see sourcing that rises to the level of in-depth coverage about the trophy? Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not about the trophy per se, but yes about the game series (which involves a trophy), which is why I didn't go with delete. I think the "nexus" of all of this, now that I've dug a little deeper, is List of NCAA college football rivalry games. There really does seem to be a term rivalry game but this is not the same thing as a rivalry in the sense WP means in its category system and as the term is used in more clearly written journalism than some of the sources at these articles. What's happened is that rivaly game sometimes get shortened in sports writing to rivalry (and in a few cases even in the name of such an event), but this is a different meaning, along the lines of 'organized series of periodic match-ups between a pair of teams in geographical proximity to each other'. It's an ambiguity we are not accounting for. We need to have a category on rivalry games (a series of such matches between two such nearby teams, often but not always with a trophy, and often but not always with a distinct name for the game series), and move the keepable articles to titles that make it clear they are about an event series not about an alleged rivalry in the other sense, of 'a subculture of sports-related antagonism between two teams' fandoms'. E.g. Central Michigan–Eastern Michigan football rivalry and pretty much every other article misnamed and miscategorized like it, are not about "rivalries" but about an organized series of "rivalry game" matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Language (here) defines a "rivalry" as "competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field. 'there always has been intense rivalry between the clubs'" A series of rivalry games between two clubs seems to meet that definition to a T. I just don't see this particular "rivalry" having sufficient depth of coverge to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before heading to the reference section to confirm notability, I thought, "If I heard the phrase 'Grand Canyon Rivalry,' I would want to know what it meant, and this article addresses that neatly." I then went to the reference section and confirmed notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: Did you find sources with WP:SIGCOV -- i.e., in depth coverage of this series as a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but call it Grand Canyon Trophy Game until secondary sources can confirm its indeed a rivalry at which point a re-name to Grand Canyon Rivalry would make sense. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Left guide
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/18/suu-football-much-stake-years-grand-canyon-rivalry/75974816/		(presumably)	The title is misleading, as the first sentence makes a routine announcement of the upcoming game, and then diverts to discussing the Southern Utah coach and other aspects of the team's season the rest of the way. Not focused on the matchup/rivalry and says almost nothing meaningful about Northern Arizona aside from a single passing mention from the SUU coach: The guys have higher aspirations now. It’s about beating NAU and all that comes with it.	✘ No
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/19/suu-football-demario-warren-faces-former-teammate-grand-canyon-rivalry/76085934/		(presumably)	~ Doesn't really discuss the two involved teams as a matchup or rivalry, mostly about the two individual coaches from each team who happen to have a prior personal connection and their anecdotes about it. Not particularly focused on the matchup/rivalry but not entirely off-topic either.	~ Partial
https://bigskyconf.com/news/2015/11/14/FB_1114150039.aspx	It's the conference's website, so a primary source.		Didn’t bother to read since it won't count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150907212820/http://www.nauathletics.com/sports/fball/2012-13/releases/20121106d133ob	It’s the website of one of the involved teams, so a primary source.		Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://suutbirds.com/news/2013/11/21/209319368.aspx	It’s the website of the other involved team, so a primary source.		Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://fbschedules.com/nau-southern-utah-schedule-12-game-football-series-2028-to-2039/		The site says they’re a partner of USA Today, so I initially believed they’re reliable although another editor has expressed uncertainty about its reliability.	~ Most of this is WP:CRYSTAL but there are two paragraphs that offer overview-level encyclopedic coverage of the matchup as an established cohesive topic: Northern Arizona and Southern Utah, both current members of the Big Sky Conference, compete annually in a matchup dubbed the Grand Canyon Rivalry. However the Thunderbirds are leaving the Big Sky for the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) beginning with the 2022 season. Northern Arizona and Southern Utah have played each other every season since 2008 and have met 25 times overall. The two schools played twice during the spring 2021 season, with the Lumberjacks coming out on top in both contests, 34-33 in Flagstaff and 28-20 in Cedar City. Northern Arizona currently leads the overall series 15-10.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment: Attached above is my analysis of the sources in the article with regards to WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but issues and sourcing raised at the prior AfD don't appear to have changed. The promotional tone wouldn't be as much of an issue with independent sourcing to address it. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Poland. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as last time, primary sourcing or non RS sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such a lack of sources that the first 3 are a primary site, wiki mirrors and the NYT search that shows it has no coverage in the newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cross wiki promotional spam, yes. That said, this survived an AfD on pl wiki that I started a while back (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:05:30:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach) with the majority there concluding that despite the tiny size etc. it is officially recognixzed and listed on the lists of museums supported by the pl gov't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: are our notability standards more stringent than those of the 45 other language wikis that have a page about this government-accredited museum? The poor writing and sloppy sourcing are certainly making it difficult to endorse the article in its current form, but that's an argument for rewriting, not deleting.it. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balti wine

AfDs for this article:

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

This page appears to completely fail the notability guidelines for companies, and the organisation behind the brand also seems to have vanished, having not been notable in the first place, IMO B800h (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this wine, it's all foods to eat for Christmas now that pop up. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original Nominator here. ~~Delete~~: I'm convinced that this wasn't notable to begin with, just the result of some good PR. There were a cluster of articles when the brand launched. It now appears to have been defunct for a long time. B800h (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B800h, I have relocated the above text which was above the heading, and struck the "delete" opinion, as your nomination already provides that. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There were substantial Keep opinions in the 2007 AfD (and also opinions worth reading on the article Talk page). The original firm seems to have ceased 13-14 years ago (Companies House), though there were several similarly named subsequent firms. I feel too much was resting on the Manchester Evening News interview with the founder, which would be discounted under the later WP:NCORP standards, and too much was riding on the firm's own claim that their Argentinian wine branding was a market innovation and on expectation of a great future for this distribution / branding start-up. There was also a sponsorship deal [14] but again, such are insufficient for current notability standards. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Prodigal Son#Theatre. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigal Son (play)

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

Unsourced since 2007. A WP:BEFORE search discovered nothing substantial relating to this play in particular, which doesn't seem to even be the most notable play of the story. Moshe1022 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Prodigal Son#Theatre. This play doesn't seem to be notable, but there are other plays that would make a redirect useful. HappyWith (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of a redirect option as well. Moshe1022 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect as well. Kazamzam (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The play has never been produced. I don't think it's anything encyclopedic at all. It shouldn't even be listed in the Disambig page. If it should be redirected anywhere, it should be to the playwright Peter Wessel Zapffe's page -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Prodigal Son#Theatre as a reasonable search term. Should not redirect to Zapffe because this is also the most logical name for the 1951 and 1735 plays which are at least as notable (likely more IMHO). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship

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

Similar to this deletion discussion. This article is full of unsourced cruft and tables of statistics with no accompanied commentary. There are no sources that indicate that the subject of "Vienamese teams at the World Championship" is a notable topic. There is no reason to merge this article to any of the World Championship articles, as its simply statistics. – Pbrks ^(t · c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Vietnam. – Pbrks ^(t · c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this has been recently edited and so a soft-deletion is unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merely statistics, no notable results in the championship. Using Ctrl+F on the main article, 'Vietnam' is only used four times in the prose, indicating there isn't enough content to be merged. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is simply not for just parking tables. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velo Vie

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

Originally prodded in 2010, and the article has not seen any more sigcov. There is a review on one of their bicycles but it seems to be more about the bike than the company, barely counting as one source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly any coverage [15], this is all I can find. Nothing else, no mentions of the company. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Oaktree b. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital separation

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

It is a WP:DICDEF. The single source is a dictionary entry. [16] also defines the term as "used in commentaries on hospital statistics to describe the departure of a patient from hospital without distinguishing whether the patient departed alive or dead." It could perhaps be added to wikt:separation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and transwiki to Wikt per nom. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we should have something here. We have an article at Against medical advice, which is a subtopic of this one. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WHATABOUTX, I don't think the AMA article's notability transfers to this one. They are related topics, but I do not think one is a subtopic of the other. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article seems to be about hospital statistics that are not specifically related to separation. "In Australia, the main hospital separations of 2004–05 were: 1. Digestive system problems. 2. Neoplasms. 3. Injury/Poisoning. ..." But those are reasons why the person went into the hospital, not why they left. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Fire (novel)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and Italy. Kadı Message 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It looks like it got reviews by both Kirkus Reviews that you can find here, and Publishers Weekly that you can find here, as well as a short review in The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, which is here. None of the reviews are particularly long, but I believe they would fulfil point one of WP:NBOOK. I took a look at the Italian Wikipedia, but it does not look like this book has its own article there to draw any additional sources from. At the very least, if other editors do not agree on these reviews being sufficient for Keeping, this article should at least be used as a Redirect to Pierdomenico Baccalario rather than being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reviews above, I found this in Italian, which gives us the two reviews for WP:BOOKCRIT even if we discount Kirkus/PW. (A surprising number of books don’t even make it to Kirkus/PW/Booklist so I don’t think they’re unacceptable for BOOKCRIT but it’s nice to see other sources too.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proffered sources are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eliminative materialism. History remains under the redirect for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionary materialism

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

Non significant coverage at [17] and [18] (they mention the term twice and once respectively. Cannot find any other verbatim usage. Suggest merging/redirecting to eliminative materialism if anything can be salvaged. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, nom is right that we could possibly redirect this, were there anything worth saving here, but there really isn't. The sources are marginal and deletion is clearly the best option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to eliminative materialism - couldn't find many secondary sources which give revisionary materialism much depth - there are some uses by Patricia Churchland and uses of "revisionary physicalism" by John Bickle but these are really more primary sources providing original arguments. The term does have some mentions in the context of eliminative materialism in secondary sources though, including in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([19], see also [20][21]). Probably worth a mention at eliminative materialism at least. Shapeyness (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vion Pharmaceuticals

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

WP:MULTSOURCES - one source for its bankruptcy alone is not notable, nor did the experimental drugs ever leave trial stage. Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created then later updated by the WP:SPA VPInc regarding the progress of their drug trials then in progress. The FDA rejection and subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the firm do not provide attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eleonore of Schaumburg-Lippe

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source is her own LinkedIn page. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Denmark. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Almost no coverage of her. In fact, I couldn't find anything about the subject from any reliable sources, so she fails WP:GNG. Moshe1022 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A euro-poppet having a perfectly lovely insignificant career. Bless. But the place for this is Linked-In with 100 million others. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Arar, Saudi Arabia. Daniel (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdullah bin Musa'ed Sports City

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

No citations. Nexovia (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nexovia (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The article was created on 3 December 2023, I think it is possible to turn it into a draft before deletion. Svartner (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Arar, Saudi Arabia. One citation was added, however the nomination just flatly saying "no citations" isn't a helpful nomination. If the stadium gets better coverage, then it could have its own article in the future. But at the moment, I feel it's better serve in the article about the city it's in if it's a multi-use stadium. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Conker (series). Daniel (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conker (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only good source were the criticism of its design from Project Spark, but thats it! GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conker (series), as a vast majority of the content and commentary is more about the games/series than the character itself. I'll note, anecdotally, that I do recall a lot of commentary in the 2000s about the change in direction from children's game to a game with adult themes...but even then, I'm not sure if they were talking about the character, or more about the game itself. Probably the latter, but maybe others will find something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ran into the same problems as Sergecross mentioned: Conker isn't discussed as much as a character as the games around him were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per others. Yeah I couldn't find sourcing based solely around the character. It was mostly the game not the character. Conyo14 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with series – The series and the character together have great notability, the problem in this case is the separate articles. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brutos Framework

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I can't believe this has been hiding here for seven years. Owen× ☎ 14:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article subject does not appear notable, and the entire article as it stands violates WP:NOT with no scope to re-write the current content into a proper encyclopaedia article — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly NOT. Not sure if it's something that Wikibooks allows? 94rain ^Talk 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 11:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why the original poorly cited article was put up for deletion, however, I've now expanded it and added reliable sources. Not only is he descended from the Royal House of Denmark, but he's also in the line of the succession to the British throne which clearly makes him notable. Bermicourt (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 5,000 people in line to the British throne by the reckoning that you are using (which [as I've said elsewhere in other discussions] is faulty since in practice the line is restricted to British citizens and it would take a massive disaster of global proportions to kill the first 100 people in the line of succession, meaning no-one would be worrying about who the 101st person in line would be because we'd all be too busy trying to survive). Being descended from someone notable does not make the descendants notable. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But being cited in reliable sources does. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Entries in genealogical directories are insufficient to meet the WP:GNG criteria. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little of the article is actually about him personally as opposed to his relatives.170.76.231.175 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has he ever done anything, or just conjugated, and rocked up to weddings and funerals? That's a career of sorts, but it's not notable for anyone so low on the deposed and irrelevent royal ladder. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article says the same things 3 times over, once in the introduction, again in the "Life" section, and again in the infobox, tells us that this is genealogy, padded out to make it look like it is more than it really is. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe is a historcial person and of interest for a online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, an article for this person was previously deleted with the reason "Expired Wikipedia:PROD, concern was: No credible claim of notability: article is only a genealogical entry. Notability is not inherited." 2601:249:9301:D570:2C94:DFF9:B48E:5FEB (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The argument that the coverage is not significant is probably the winning argument currently, relisting to see if it can be disproven or alternatively if there's more support for that viewpoint.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is really nothing in this article but genealogy. The article would need sourced, biographical information about what this person has done with his life, besides being born to people of royal descent, marrying, and having children, to warrant keeping it on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: no sigcov available. Uhai (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete WP:NOTINHERITED violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No one is arguing for retention, and no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Válá Meshkin

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

Declined prod. Only 1 article links to this. Could not significant coverage of this individual in news and google books searches. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Architecture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He may be better known as an architect than a musician, but several of his architect related citations are from books or publications that cannot be accessed online to verify. None of his music citations are acceptable, so even if the page is kept it needs to be edited to remove much of his music info. If someone can find verifiable citations, let me know and I can change my vote.Royal88888 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Son Sik

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

Already been draftified before, and couldnt find any sources Begocc (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously notable, and plenty of reliable sources online in Korean. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to provide the best WP:THREE to look at? Roxy177 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a third reference. Wikishovel (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and available sourcing sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now notability is evident. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jinan North railway station

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

This article is too WP:CRYSTAL to be useful, all the listed sources are pointing to another station called "Jibei station", none of them are indicating Jinan North as a high speed railway station. The title name was cited by some local medias, finally defined as rumours, to indicate a station of Shiji passenger railway, called Qihe (on zhwiki), was to be renamed to be so, but when Shiji opened for service, that station remains called Qihe, not Jinan North. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders-sandholm, Nikki, RobotMichiel1972, Lockal, and Pasleim: ^^ Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to add all this to the article and then rename it Qihe railway station? Thincat (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat Better to re-create that article, to avoid questions on reliability of sources. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is best. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until the situation clears up. This will be much easier to source once the Chinese language wiki has a well-referenced page about it. Owen× ☎ 16:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever information I can find on Jinan North station is mainly specuative planning articles, so it's WP:TOOSOON. Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suboptimal health

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

As far as I can tell, the concept (as defined by Yan and Wang) describes a set of risk factors for obesity, smoking, mental health issues, and being overworked. Except for sources 3-6, all sources include both Yu-Xiang Yan and Wei Wang on the author list. Sources 4 and 5 also do not have listed authors. This makes me seriously question if sources 3, 4, 5, 6 can pull their weight as reliable and independent (of Yan and Wang's research), especially to the high standard of WP:MEDRS. I suspect the original creation of this article was a COI edit, as several paragraphs show up as copy pastes on earwig from Yan and Wang's publications. I will now go over sources 3-6:

- Source 3 does not cite any of Yan and Wang's publications, but comes after in 2013, suggesting that the research on 'subhealth' is only coincidentally similar to 'suboptimal health' researched by Yan and Wang. It seems to be the only source independent of Yan and Wang to meet MEDRS.

- The concept of suboptimal health been used to uncriticially promote chinese traditional medicine (TCM) - see this removal for example. source (source 4), also mentions how TCM is central to the concept and markets TCM products to this end. It does not meet MEDRS as it is an opinion article.

- Source 5 uncritically promotes TCM, makes no citations, and it is unclear to me if it refers to the same topic that Yan and Wang cover. Does not meet MEDRS.

- Source 6 looks reliable, independent and has significant coverage, stating: "However, lacking of precise definition by official health bodies, the term "sub-health" remains a vague concept. The concept of sub-health has gone popular in the Chinese mainland in the 90s and has been controversial. It was accused of being a commercial excuse for the business of health care products by the local media." As a news report it does not meet MEDRS.

Sources I did find, by doing a google and google scholar search for 'subhealth' and 'suboptimal health':

- [22]. It seems reliable, independent and has significant coverage. It claims that Wang has published over 200 papers about SHS which I am a bit skeptical of, but otherwise this seems okay. Does not mention TCM involvement.

- [23]. Does not cite Yan and Wang. This paper is funded by a company trying to promote the aformentioned dietary supplement, and is unrelated to TCM. I doubt it would meed MEDRS due to the lack of independent review or funding.

Of course, uncritically promoting TCM does not alone warrant the concept/article for deletion, so my main argument is about the lack of independent sources meeting MEDRS with significant coverage to Yan and Wang's research. It is also unclear to what extent Yan and Wang's research may have been involved to promote TCM. My speculation is that this term has a popular Chinese equivalent term in circulation, which I cannot verify myself as I can't read Chinese. It is possible the topic has notability for Chinese Wikipedia, which it does have an article for (it seems to be a translated copy of this one). But I do find it concerning how the concept uncritically promotes TCM. I am not sure what role Wikipedia should play in presenting that material without undue weight, especially considering the paucity of sources I could identify in english which independently refer to Yan and Wang's research, since they seem to be the central researchers to the topic as it exists in China.

My personal opinion is to delete the article, and it could be restored when significant coverage by two reliable, independent sources meeting MEDRS are published and found -- ideally review articles of the concept, including its Chinese historical significance and how it is related to both TCM and dietary supplements. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translational medicine: the target is better sourced, and covers more than just a single term. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice for the reasons given by nom; merge as second choice, but to Traditional Chinese Medicine rather than Translational Medicine. Most of the citations discuss subhealth in the context of TCM, so at least with the references we have it seems like a better fit for that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Comment. After checking publications in Google Scholar, this seems to be a sufficiently established terminology in various contexts, for example [24],[25], [26]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources you linked: 3 has Yang and Wang, and 5 has Wang, so they are not independent (I happened to of already read source 3 as part of WP:BEFORE). I did not know 4 existed (thank you for finding it!), and at first it seems to be a reliable source to establish notability. Ideally, to meet MEDRS we would have multiple such independent reviews, so this still seems somewhat of a borderline case. Although I notice a few statements leading me to question its reliability:

- Many developed countries, including Saudi Arabia, I understand some of the authors reside in Saudi Arabia but I understand this statement to be false.

- According to the diagnostic guidelines provided by the Association of Chinese Medicine, symptoms in three areas, namely, systematic, psychological, and social, are evaluated to assess SHS This confirms in part that SHS is associated to TCM, although the exact relationship is still unclear to me. In any case, a significant amount of SHS studies seem from Wang's research group.

- Of the four metrics among 12-14 articles assessed in the review (SHSQ-25, SHMS V1.0, MSQA, SSS) the original proposals of SHSQ-25 and MSQA appear to have been developed by Wang's group. Not a factor to rule it out, just as an observation.

- The paper states SHS has now been recognized as an essential construct in personalized medicine to decrease the risk of developing disease and enhance general health. Moreover, the idea of SHS reflects the belief that chronic diseases can be effectively predicted and prevented before a clinical manifestation of severe pathologies from the view of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine and cites [27] for support, which seems like a paper mill as the only search result for the journal is a LLC company statement. The quote is a significant claim considering the little research in the area and makes me possibly question the neutrality of the authors on the subject.

I do not have a good explanation, but I have to wonder why there is no research I can seem to find covering this in the US, considering this particularly named theory has been around since at least 2009. Anyway, I think these are all factors that should be weighed in consideration of the outcome of this AfD. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I certainly do not have time and expertise to look so carefully at all these sources... My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and given journals or content published in journals (namely about "suboptimal health") are not inherently notable, especially concepts that only function as one researcher's "brand". बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Zenteno

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

The subject is a Bolivian women's footballer. I was unable to find any in-depth coverage, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of sources Svartner (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Viega

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Computing. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John is the most respected people in the software security space. Author of numerous books on the topic. I have just spent the afternoon researching and updating this. Will post next. 81.100.30.32 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Viega seems to have been one of the major influencers of computer security. WP:ACADEMIC applies here, as his work in the field is highly influential, whether or not he has been the subject of mutliple independent media stories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 as google scholar shows highly cited works here. At WP:ACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Note 1 states:" the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.

I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally). Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege. I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.

But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:

1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it (https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/).

2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).

Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it. For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous. The 2021 F5 Labs data (https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.

Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard. https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d

It's not going anywhere any time soon.

Either way, thanks for the consideration. It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut! 68.129.210.33 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Weighing up the opinions before and after improvement (as hinted at by Liz), there seems to be a consensus to keep this expanded version of the article. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Familie Leitner

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

Cites no sources, little non-trivial information can be found online, fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Austria. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~I'da sent it to draft, FWIW...~~ Oh no I wouldn't - are you seriously telling me this has been a thing since 2011? Grief!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable long-lasting Austrian series.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article does cite various reliable secondary sources about this indeed long-lasting series on the main national channel.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very different article than the one that existed at the time of nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dramatic improvements in both content and sourcing changed this into a viable article. Those who voiced their opinion here on the day of the nomination: please take another look. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it seems there was a book written about it and several retrospective pieces published.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Thomas

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

Has been in notable shows, but she doesn't seem to be notable herself. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:NACTOR for her roles in the main casts of Bus Life, Young Dracula and Railway Children at least ("The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). Needs further improvement. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to support this, Mushy Yank? All articles need to pass general notability guidelines, which involves having reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. After reviewing the sources listed on the page, as well as a quick Google search, I could find any sources with significant coverage of Clare Thomas. I'd be interested in keeping the page, though, if sources are found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/what-happened-cast-young-dracula-21982683 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the source presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, no sources showing this meets any SNG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Youtube channel	1. "Clare Lucy P - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
TVGuide database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	4. ^ "The Railway Children". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	5. ^ Miles, Tina (21 April 2011). "Young Dracula children's series to be filmed in Liverpool". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	6. ^ Tzvetkova, Juliana (12 October 2017). Pop Culture in Europe. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4408-4466-9.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (1 October 2021). The Vampire Almanac: The Complete History. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-754-3.

Nothing above or in BEFORE shows WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BLP require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review Timothy's source analysis and for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and because, per WP:NACTOR, I'm not convinced her significant roles are in notable productions. The Railway Children (2000 film) currently does not cite any sources and the only coverage I can find pertains to the 1970 film. Bus Life and Young Dracula are poorly sourced and do not appear notable either based on available coverage. Uhai (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One click gives me a review in Variety about the Railway Children 2000...and this and this ..so yes, although certainly not as good as the 1970 version according to many, that film may be considered notable although the page is unsourced on the English Wikipedia.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh Micholi

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

Fails NFILM. No review found online. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. To establish the noteworthiness of the film, I have expanded the lead section (and rearranged a few sentences) to include discussion of the film’s prominence because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). I have also increased the cites for the article. Scholar165 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing deletion (as at the very very least a redirect to the director's page is in my view warranted.) But the infos are verifiable and this is a 1962 film with very notable cast and director, which contributes to the film's notoriety (WP:INHERIT does not apply to this statement, thank you in advance for not mentioning it). ~~So I would rather like a plain~~ keep as the film ~~might~~seems to meet the following criterion: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." (WP:NFILM) if we can consider it is a major part of Ravindra Dave's and Male Sinha's career~~, but this very point would need to be established more clearly maybe~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) (changed to plain keep in the light of the improvements made by Scholar165)[reply]
Thank you for your useful comments. As per your suggestion toward the end of your comments, I have expanded the lead section and rearranged a few sentences to explain the noteworthiness of the film because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). Scholar165 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@Scholar165: and thank you for the improvements made to the page. I changed my !vote to full Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Mushy Yank and @User:Scholar165:You are saying that the film passes second criteria of WP:NFIC which says "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career" but this film is not the "major part of their career". The film only "features significant involvement" not "major part of their career". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not the "major part of their career"(s) (emphasis mine) but as it was a commercial success, an important/major part of them (you will note that the guideline uses "a"). Still, if you think a redirect to Ravindra Dave#Hindi films and merge there is better, I am not opposed to this solution, personally (although I still do think a keep is better). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems you posted the same message twice@Scholar165:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I added much of the second para in the lead section to establish the article’s notability after the deletion nomination. Also added were several new cites and an image. If anyone has suggestions on anything else I can add, I will try my best to incorporate these into the article. Thanks.Scholar165 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secretarias

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with links to 2 sites with nothing more than blurbs about it, no indepth coverage. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ecuador. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, links in the deprod are not sufficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without any reference or parallel article on es.wiki Svartner (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herminigildo Ranera

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

Successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Philippines, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewrite and more sources, because the current article reads like it was lifted from a CV. With regard to notability, I would argue that this article can be retained as the subject is significantly notable in the Philippines. Ranera was a NAMCYA winner (which is one of the top music competitions in the country), and was a former conductor of the national orchestra. His current group (UST Symphony Orchestra) is also a resident group of the country's premier cultural institution. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though some sprucing up is needed (such as but not limited to more relevant references as one isn't enough, an infobox template and probably a freely licensed photo). -Ian Lopez @ 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy bear hospital

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

Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Last AfD attracted little response and was no consensus. It reads as promotional, but also I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N, as an individual place or as a concept. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, Israel, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital; the article was renamed following a move request. No opinion on the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such initiatives often have a limited shelf life and are best not captured in WP entries. Still, if it was mentioned on St George's Hospital, it could have been redirected. Since it isn't, delete is the only good option. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ARTN, WP:NTEMP. There is also no WP:DEADLINE. Although I cannot see the ProQuest previews (they might just be dead links), I can find a number of sources independent of St George's University of London with independent significant coverage: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Granted, a few of these are preprints, but there is plenty of academic material for expansion. The article doesn't even list there was a trial in Singapore too: [34]. I will try to expand the sources and improve the article too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made some initial improvements to the article. With the sources provided it could still be improved plenty more - going in details about regional variations of studies, how study design differs from typical practice in pediatric curriculums, what hospitals run programs, so on. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This AfD was opened less than three weeks after the prvious one was closed. I also find the comment about "limited shelf life" odd. The project has been going on for 23 years already. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on, not least, the journal sources/coverage (Nordic Journal of Nursing Research , Health Professional Education , Journal of Health Psychology , National University of Singapore , Canadian Medical Education Journal , etc), I don't think I can support deletion on a "can't find sources" basis. The promotional stuff is WP:SURMOUNTABLE (and already largely surmounted). If there are issues here, I don't think they are so fundamental (clear lack of notability, overt/insurmountable advertising, copyvio, etc) that deletion is the right approach. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jackson (photographer)

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

Successful photographer, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability of the subject. The closest I could get is a NB Magazine profile of the subject, but that's not going to establish notability. Ping me if notability guideline-worthy sources are found. Tails Wx 03:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still ineligible for Soft Deletion. Some more participation here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The PROD nom and contention were from 2008 and the article has remained poorly sourced since then (and since its creation), due to a dearth of available coverage that a search confirms. Uhai (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaynor Barnes

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

Exists, and did work for regional media mainly. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes she was a regional broadcaster but she was a leading presenter on Yorkshire Television for three decades. This is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Also, the article has plenty of independent references. Rillington (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP require strong sourcing, this has none with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth from WP:IS WP:RS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails WP:IS, primary, "Barnes is a patron of Yorkshire Air Ambulance", fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, name mentioned in list and caption	1. "Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report. March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
Fails WP:IS, primary, interview "The Prince of Wales Hospice welcomes three new Patrons, ITV Calendar presenters Gaynor, Christine and Du"	2. ^ "Calendar Presenters Become Patrons". The Prince of Wales Hospice. 14 August 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Interview, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life". Yorkshire Life. 11 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ Berry, Chris (13 May 2005). "The Southern 'softie' with northern grit". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Primary, fails WP:IS, "Meet the team" promo	5. ^ "Meet the team". ITV Calendar. 31 January 2019.
Name mention, panelist, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	6. ^ Zientek, Henryk (19 November 2008). "Help for entrepreneurs". Huddersfield Examiner. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Interview, fails WP:IS	7. ^ TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life Yorkshire Life, 11 January 2010
Routine news about programming change. Fails primary, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth	8. ^ "John Shires and Gaynor Barnes to leave ITV News Calendar". ITV News. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
Name listed, fails SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	9. ^ "RTS Yorkshire Programme Awards 2021". Royal Television Society. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.

Above keep vote provides no sources or guidelines for eval. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 11:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help for those editors who want to Keep this article to respond to the source analysis or bring forward some additional sources that could help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above analysis: there's no indication WP:GNG is met and there doesn't appear to be additional sources beyond what is already in the article and analyzed above. Uhai (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While we always welcome new editors, I am more persuaded by established editors who are more familar with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. Though it is interesting to hear that the Furry world has its own award ceremony. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Brooks

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

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

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and based on a search online and at the Wikipedia Library; the article has one book review [35]; her profile at ISFDB does not list reviews in entries for her works. Beccaynr (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wiki page has been up since 2006 with steady and incremental additions to the bibliography, and I found another review listed for her book here and a mention of her in a contest with other notable Oklahoma authors (Ree Drummond, S.E. Hinton, & Lou Berney)in 2016--LovingtheBruce (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — LovingtheBruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The figure is notable and has some reliable sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The part of the WP:AUTHOR notability guideline based on reviews (#3) indicates more is needed to support notability than two reviews for one work, so the NONzine review found for Vision2, and the review from The Oklahoman in the article for Vision2, plus the passing mention of her name in a Best of OKC 2016: People source about other people, is not enough according to the notability guideline to develop a balanced article that is not advertising. The lack of adequate support in reliable sources for notability under any guideline is one reason for deletion, and this article also appears to be contrary to WP:NOT policy because this article seems to be promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find mentions of the author at all, I'm not sure the NonZine review is a RS. There doesn't seem to be enough critical notice of the author to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still say Keep I did a slightly deeper search and found another mention of her as a runner up for the 2019 Ursa Major Award for Best Short Fiction and listed as a contributor to the Oklahoma Historical Society's 2020 Exhibit for Covid as an author/artist — LovingtheBruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - from the award link: "The Ursa Major Awards are Anthropomorphic (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of s-f fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth. The Ursa Majors are administered and presented by the Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts Association (ALAA), an organization dedicated to promoting anthropomorphic literature and arts both within and outside of the fandom." This does not appear to be a notable award supporting notability. The other link above is an archive listing, not a secondary source supporting notability, and may be a different Kristi Brooks who is a painter. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem reliable. Nonzine has other reviews for books, music etc so I would say it's a RS too. Also found this podcast she was a guest on for one of her books https://www.heroesmediagroup.com/podcast/finally-fiction-with-kristi-brooks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerdancerRH (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) — FlowerdancerRH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a passing mention by a couple of local newspapers falls short of establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. The clearly canvassed votes here certainly don't help the case. Owen× ☎ 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Treaty of Hadiach. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth

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

The article reproduces the Treaty of Hadiach. There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge. You should delete that article and create a redirect. Marcelus (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a state proposed in a treaty but nowhere else, and which was never actually created, has no importance beyond the treaty. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising. This is clearly more tha just a one off idea. — Knightoftheswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth~~ Treaty of Hadiach: not enough to sustain a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed merge target per Renata3, Eluchil404 and nom. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Treaty of Hadiach - seems duplicative content. Renata•3 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow. The article is about a proposed constitutional arrangement that was agreed by the treaty, but never actually happened. Accordingly this article should not exist. The proposed target article coverts not only the treaty itslef but the surrounding circumstances. Possibly some content of this article needs merging, which will leave a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Treaty of Hadiach. This proposed state never came to fruition and gained no notability independent of the treaty proposing it. There is not much to merge but no reason to lose any particular content that can be sourced. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merge proposition to Treaty of Hadiach Marcelus (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Path of Titans

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

The only significant coverage I could find from a reliable source was from Pocket Gamer, and this is their best article about it - every other one from them is just a short thing about the new updates. All other significant coverage is from random bloggy sites. QuietCicada - Talk 18:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 18:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON or just not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the news coverage on the updates is just routine coverage, but this independent review seems fairly detailed: [36]. This French review looks detailed too, I found it on metacritic: [37]. Since the listing it's also gotten coverage in a podcast from Rock Paper Shotgun here: [38]. I haven't listened to it though, it's probably just five minutes coverage so I suppose it doesn't count for much. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and reexamine when the game comes out or a year from now, whichever comes first. For now, it's not ready for main namespace. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, doesn't pass WP:GNG...yet. --Mika1h (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 California State Senate election#District 9. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Rubio

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

Highest office is a city council. No national news coverage or really any coverage at all outside of routine campaign/municipal politics stuff. Clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Biology, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in the following news coverage. There is more and I will post when located.

CAMPAIGN2020: Candidate Marisol Rubio hopes State Senate District 7 Voters Are Ready For A Change - YouTube

City of San Ramon passes new firearm storage ordinance – NBC Bay Area MRC2024 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is draftification or redirect until the election. Curbon7 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol has had multiple news coverage across the Bay Area and, in addition to her two elected positions held to date, she serves in leadership positions across California and the country. I can verify and attest to the accuracy of the information provided on this page to date and ask that it not be removed because there is no justifiable reason to do so. MRC2024 (talk) 05:49, 30 November Wikipedia.
The information on Marisol Rubios Wikipedia page is correct. Marisol Rubio is an elected San Ramon City Council person. She is an active member of the CA Dem Party. She was elected to the water board prior to being elected to city council. Marisol Rubio is a member of SEIU-2015. She is a co-chair/vice chair of the CA Dem Party's Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion committee. Marisol has been in many local news stations reports in the Bay Area. She stood in solidarity with the striking SEIU-UHW workers at Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek and I witnessed her being interviewed by a reporter that day and saw it on the local news that evening. I serve with Marisol as a delegate to the Contra Costa Labor Council and as an active member of the Dem Party of Contra Costa in California. Please don't remove this page, it is accurate and I attest to the facts shared here.

Amy Scott-Slovick, AD 15 Eboard Member to the CA Dem Party, Associate Member of the Dem Party of CCC, Delegate at the Contra Costa Labor Council.

Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the page. We are discussing whether or not she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Appearing on local news a couple times does not prove notability. Read WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG--Mpen320 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of the discussion was a redirect, the obvious target would be 2024 California State Senate election#District 9. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, and unelected candidates in future state legislative elections do not get articles on those grounds either — and simply having a normal level of run of the mill local coverage of local politics in the local media, where such coverage of local politics is merely expected, is not enough to deem her more special than everybody else, because every other city councillor on earth has similar levels of local coverage in his or her local media too. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next November if she wins the state legislature seat, but nothing here is already enough as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for maintaining the article about Marisol Rubio in Wikipedia.

The argument for deletion of Marisol Rubio’s article appears to hinge on Honorable Marisol Rubio only being of interest to local populations.

I direct your attention to:

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Demographics_of_California

Demographics of California - Wikipedia

California is the most populated U.S. state, with an estimated population of 38.9 million as of 2023. [1] It has people from a wide variety of ethnic, racial, national, and religious backgrounds. Population California is the most populated sub-national entity in North America.

And too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area

My argument is that in the San Francisco Bay Area being involved to the level that Ms. Rubio is involved is significant.

Of note she is an up and coming elected progressive woman who champions the environment (Sierra Club) and inclusion (CA Democratic Party JEDI Board- https://cadem.org/standing-committee/diversity-equity-inclusion-committee/) and she is currently running for CA District 9 State Senator seat.

In California, our state senators represent more people than our elected members to the House of Representatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate

I read a recent post that verified what was in the Wikipedia information about Marisol Rubio and I too can verify that the information is factual. But then I saw from another post that stated that it isn’t whether the information is factual but whether it is notable. As a user of Wikipedia I appreciate being able to search for honest and reliable information. Regarding the maintaining of the article is the question. My position is that the article on Marisol Rubio should be maintained because she is running for CA State Senate to represent just under one million people (my community). I believe this article will be/is of service to our community in getting to know about an outstanding community activist, a woman who is a member of a minority, from the working class who is running for the CA Senate. She is a role model and I do not believe that she nor the work that she has done is "run of the mill". 2601:644:9200:A31B:A48C:8654:95AE:867 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right...I'm sure you, the anonymous user typing out an overly formal essay praising Marisol Rubio, are a totally different person compared to the first commenter, who was also an anonymous user typing out an overly formal essay praising Marisol Rubio. There are over 100 state senate candidates in CA every two years and tens of thousands of city councilors. Giving all of them a Wikipedia page would be ridiculous. And that's even besides the point because, even if your argument was sensible, that's not Wikipedia's current policy, so this page should still be deleted. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Should Rubio win the state senate election, which is almost a year from now, then the article can be recreated as she would pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator is advised that a fuller deletion rationale (rather than simply "Fails WP:GNG") might be more persuasive to participating editors and also demonstrate BEFORE had been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Patterson

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Oregon. Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with coverage such as Oregon's Avery Patterson goes from little-known backup to pick-six safety as secondary shines, Patterson back at full speed for Ducks (P2) and Healed Avery Patterson one of D-Boyz again Alvaldi (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided in this discussion shows that this subject reaches the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason "Singer" Smith

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

Over 20 years ago, he was involved in an altercation in Kyrgyzstan with Tommy Caldwell (who would become one of America's most notable climbers); however, Smith achieved little notability beyond that incident, and there is no proper SIGCOV on him in any quality RS (either national-RS or in climbing-RS per WP:NCLIMBER). Can't see this BLP surviving on Wikipedia long-term? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best I found looking through the interweb and the climbing mags is this interesting... memoir. That said, not much value is lost if this stub is deleted.

No prejudice to creation if someone else manages to locate some obscure sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge into an article about the hostage event in Central Asia. However, no such article exists at this point. Cortador (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While there has been a late shift in sentiment that points to 'keep' due to changes to the article during this debate, the changes to the article actually make it really hard for me to assess whether this should be closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus'. This is because some comments were made prior to changes, others after the changes, and the relevance of those made prior to the changes are hard to assess.

What I do know for sure is there is no consensus to delete here in this discussion. I've elected to come down on the side of no consensus for the simple reason that if this needs to be explored again (referencing the 'new' version of the article) in the new year, it can be done earlier than if I was to close as 'keep'. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Go Getters

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

Fails GNG and does not appear to meet NBAND. The sources cited in the article are not RSes: DISCOGS, Beat offers paid native content, Worldkustom.com has no editorial standards and appears to be an SPS, and volt.fm is a website to track Spotify statistics. The Weekend Edition is the only RS, but that does not provide SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC):[reply]

It`s a Swedish band, most sources are in Swedish language, that`s why you can not find much info in English about it. Please take a look at Swedish version of the page: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Getters Wikirapguru (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their Swedish article has zero sources and almost no biographical information, making it even less useful than this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - They've had a long career and probably a small regional following, but I can find no reliable and significant sources on the band in Swedish or English, nor have their albums received any pro reviews that I can find. They have a few of what appear to be magazine articles, already cited, but the nominator is correct on how they are unreliable and probably paid promotional services. All else to be found is from the band's social media and occasional fan blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(18 days later...) I am changing my vote to Undecided due to the improvements made to the article since the nomination. The folks below found some sources but I am not convinced that they add up to significant coverage for this band, though my stance has softened and Admins can judge the other votes below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know @Doomsdayer520 that Julle has added additional sources; see below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the Swedish version of the page can stay, but the English one has to be deleted? This does not make much sense to me. @Doomsdayer520 Wikirapguru (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikirapguru: Other language versions of Wikipedia are not relevant in determining whether this article meets the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:OTHERLANGS. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so?

I thought Wikipedia is a Wikipedia, there is 1 set of global rules. It makes no sense to say that Swedish version can stay, but English version must be deleted.

Do not close this discussion, I am going to have other unbiased editors like @4TheWynne look at it and decide on the outcome. @Doomsdayer520 Wikirapguru (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one set of global rules for all Wikipedias. Each Wikipedia community is self-governing. I would agree that if this version of the article is deleted, the Swedish version should also probably be deleted, but that will be up to the editors at Swedish Wikipedia, not us here.

Regarding closing this discussion, deletion discussions are usually allowed to run for 7 days and they are usually closed by administrators. You cannot choose who will close this conversation. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a set of global rules, they all have their own rules. I encourage you to look at WP:OTHERLANGS. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Voorts and Darling for chiming in while I was absent. @Wikirapguru severely over-reacted to my comment about the band's Swedish article. This person told us to look at the Swedish article as if that could inform this discussion, so I did. I said absolutely nothing about deleting or keeping the Swedish article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a severe over-reaction, just an inexperienced editor who wrote an article in good faith and doesn't quite understand how deletion decisions work across different language versions of Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per ~~above~~ the sourcing issues outlined. even if it was notable for the Swedish Wikipedia (which it clearly seems to not be, given the article there has zero sources), the band has nothing reliable on them, just a small cult following and a few seemingly promotional articles. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't read too much into the lack of sources on Swedish Wikipedia. We don't spend as much time cleaning up old articles if they seem plausibly notable, given the much smaller number of editors – whereas sources are required for new articles, it's easier for an old unsourced article to survive on Swedish Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, which means that people spend less focus sourcing them even if sources could be found.

(It's not unimportant! It's just that with one editor for every fifty editors on English Wikipedia, there are more articles to handle per editor. Sometimes lack of sources says more about Swedish Wikipedia than about the topic.)

In this particular case, I'm hopeful but not certain there are good enough sources to save the article. I've started by adding a full-page article from a few years back as a reference. /Julle (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, I'll keep here then; good work. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a few hundred articles about them or mentioning them in the Swedish newspaper archive which covers most of the recent years (Retriever Mediearkivet). It's missing most from their early days. I've started adding something. /Julle (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we don't have access to the article that you just added, and if you can find a few more sources providing significant coverage, would you mind providing a brief description of each source? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has experienced a lot of editing activity since this nomination. Can editors review the additions and see if they make a significant difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sourcing, Wide Open Country and Ameripolitan are lists of award winners, not SIGCOV. The Bettajive Review is SIGCOV, but the website itself is an SPS. However, the people who run it are formerly journalists, so it's kinda reliable but there's no indication that they have a fact-checker or editor on staff. "Västeråsband kan få pris på världsgala" has no link to it and it's in Swedish, so I can't evaluate. Hopefully by the end of this relisting period @Julle can add some more Swedish sources and do some kind of source analysis so that other editors can evaluate whether those sources establish notability. If that doesn't happen, given that Julle thinks that the band might plausibly be notable, I'd be okay with draftify-ing this. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had time to dig further into this (too much to do given the upcoming holidays, unfortunately).

The article I've added is a one-page newspaper article from Vestmanlands Läns Tidning about the band when they were nominated to the award mentioned in the article. While I think the coverage is relevant for our assessment, I don't know much about the award itself.

In short, I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. /Julle (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Julle. Since you don't have time to dig through sources, unless someone else does, my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per improvements I think the article meets WP:GNG. Good work. also just because the original sources were in Swedish, it does not equal non notable or less important. English sources are good now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I wasn't implying that Swedish sources couldn't be used. I was just stating that I couldn't evaluate that particular source since I don't speak Swedish and don't know how to find it. That said, I still don't think that the current sources provide SIGCOV per my analysis above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of WP:AGF as an editor in good standing has added several reliable sources news articles dedicated to the band that are not accessible on the internet and states that there are many more, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Julle has only added one offline source, and said that there might be more, but that he hasn't had time to look through them: I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that "there must be sources" is not an acceptable conclusion to an AfD discussion. With this AfD still sitting here for going on the three weeks, I'm assuming good faith but I'm also suspicious about whether those apparent sources will really come together. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They've played gigs for a few decades, so a lot of the newspaper hits are brief mentions of festival appearances or concerts. Some are reviews (examples: "Ett koncept som håller", Mindy Lara in Borås Tidning, 2 October 2006 (400 words); "En stroke kan inte stoppa en riktig fest", Stefan Nordvall in Sundsvalls Tidning, 15 February 2016; "Rockabilly på riktigt i Hultsfred", Dennis Andersson in Barometern, 5 July in 2010). In addition to what I had added before, I think the most relevant piece is the 1800 words article "The Go Getters hyllar en saknad bandkollega" (2012), which I've included in the article. /Julle (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is now keep per sources found and added by Julle. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to article. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Lancashire County Council election

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

Contested draftification. This article was moved from article space to draft space by User: Significa liberdade saying that more sources were needed. It was moved back to article space without adding sources. There is only one source, The Elections Centre of Plymouth University, which is a reliable primary source. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plymouth University is sufficient as a primary source for verifying the content. Finding secondary sources at a level comparable to the other ten articles we have for the various Lancashire County Council elections and the hundreds we have for local elections for other county council might be difficult for pre-web elections, but not impossible. Draftifying this page would only slow things down. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other Lancashire County Council elections are notable. As we go back in time, sourcing is harder, but the topic remains notable. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable event and the article is sourced (and the source is not a primary source; a primary source for the election in question would be the council itself publishing its results). Number 5 7 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable event. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jiangnan. This is a difficult discussion to assess consensus in, but my reading is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article. On that basis, I have chosen the redirect as an ATD to preserve the history and as it was suggested within the discussion but not objected to by those !voting delete. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jianghuai people

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

user:Newbamboo proposed to delete this article on the Chinese Wiki page, saying that it was "forcibly splicing irrelevant information together to conduct original research." And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar, Google Books, and CNKI.The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are redirects). Whoever said "splicing together unrelated information" nailed it. There's no sources discussing "江淮人" as an ethnic group.
It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese, right? But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this.
Redirect to Jiangnan or delete. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan. Redirecting is inappropriate. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an "ethnic group", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says. Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page. It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any. My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University. He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology. Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy? Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region? Just food for thought --142.170.60.67 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal. Wikipedia should not create its own concept. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat "Jianghuai people" as a separate "ethnic group" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong. As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per synthesis. It seems to be discussed in paper sources, but the overall picture is one of synthesizing random sources into an essay. I tried to add links, and had little success. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesho Naik

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

Appears to be an hoax. Fictional character from the named book in the article. Am unable to find any other source that mentions it in the slightest. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a minor rework into an article about the book, The Exploits of the Kesho Naik is a good option. —siro χ o 04:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be, if the character is notable. The first book the article cites actually mentions the character, and on the exact correct page, as a fictional character. It’s not a significant mention like you’d need for notability, but it supports what the article says if you know it’s fictional. (This is according to google books preview) Mrfoogles (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The snippet is: “ In 1912, for example, Sir Edmund C. Cox published The Exploits of Kesho Nark, Dacoit, which describes the exploits of a fictional Indian bandit who behaves in a Robin-Hood-like fashion: 'what Kesho robbed from the rich he distributed ... to the poor'. In this case the outlaw's activities are overtly anti-imperial.” It uses it as a quick example, basically. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sources it cites say it is fictional (maybe accidental, not a hoax?) but I don’t know if the character is notable or not. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be from a real book, so it would have to be a really indepth hoax to also fake an entire old book. Still, does not appear to pass GNG. If the book itself is notable, a new article on that would be a better idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history, the first version of the article presented the character as a real person. That part has since been corrected, though of course all the peacock wording has not. Fermiboson (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it is a hoax, but it fails WP:GNG. If we had an article about the book or its author, could redirect there, but right now I don't see a target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any coverage in independent sources [39] Ratnahastin (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep and more importantly, no support for Deletion or even Redirection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Capitals

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a borderline bad-faith nomination considering it was tagged as having sufficient sources. WP:BEFORE has not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; This team is quite new, and there's a lack of in-depth citations both within and outside Wikipedia. Presently, the citations mainly focus on athletes and coaches joining the team from different places globally and according to WP:NTEAM, the notability of an athlete (or a coach) that does not imply the notability of a team or club. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON, though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are sufficient sources the article in its current state isn't great and I doubt that anyone would notice a redirect at this stage. It might end up getting filled out in January when the next season is apparently to be played. On available sourcing it's a keep though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) A possible WP:SPA that solely participated in numerous AfD nominations I recently initiated, which raises significant doubts from the outset. -Charlie (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Redirect closure, please provide a link to a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks fine to me. Plenty of coverage out there, it doesn't have to be in the article itself. Desertarun (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debate camp

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

The concept of a debate camp doesn't seem to be notable in-and-of itself, with this page basically being a collection of primary sources linking to different camps. WP:BEFORE was difficult due to the deluge of primary sources, but I was unable to find consistent + independent coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is the edge of WP:DINC. This purports to be an article, but is effectively a list of debate camps which definitely does not belong in the encyclopaedia (WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). However, it could become an actual article. I am seeing solid, secondary and tertiary references including [40], [41], and [42] (p38-40, 112-118). There are hundreds more, but this will be a monster to research digitally with the challenging signal-to-noise ratio noted by nominator. As for GNG, I think that this is a pretty mainstream concept with lots of supporting RS. Debate camps are a big deal for certain educational tracks, mainly for secondary schoolers but also for some adult learners. I can't find it any longer, but there was an excellent piece of MBA coursework a decade or two ago comparing the net impact of debate camps to programmes such as Toastmasters; its bibliography would have made a wonderful launchpad to sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what debate camps are and the impact they can have on kids (My full-time job is as a speech and debate teacher). I am getting an "AccessDeniedAccess denied" error when I try to go to your first source and your third source is a self-published middle-grade textbook that definitely does not count for notability. The second source is solid, although it notes that research on debate camps is extremely limited. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find this from the Washington Post (EBSCOhost wapo.f73785f8-5f3d-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78) but mostly only found puff-piece and ROTM coverage of specific camps, not of camps as a category. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Debate: where the subject is already covered. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Veil (1927 film)

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

No any single reliable source. Nexovia (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nexovia (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to verify the source, but the Juhász cited reference seems likely to be a reliable source? Skynxnex (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google book search for ‘A hetedik fatyol’ brings up a bunch of snippets in Hungarian, which I can’t read, as well as a couple in German that look promising. I’d be sorry to lose an article on a film from this period unless there is genuinely nothing said about it, which doesn’t appear to be the case here. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be improved but references on the page seem to indicate notability. And Mccapra’s comment above too.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." (WP:NFILM) -It is the only production directed by István Mihály.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lipogenesis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lipoexpediency

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

Lipoexpediency is not a commonly-used term. Lipoexpediency is not even an uncommonly-used term. It originated as a clever turn-of-phrase in the title of a decade-old journal article and has been used only a small handful of times since, either in reference to that article or by members of the team that coined it. Marchantiophyta (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lipogenesis: not a common term, but appears enough in academic literature to be a likely search term, and redirects are cheap. Owen× ☎ 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as OwenX suggested. A contrast with the well-known "lipotoxicity" makes this a plausible search term but it's not substantial enough for its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K21OC-D

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/K04QR-D

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

Another HC2/Innovate station with little notability to speak of, and seemingly no known programming that isn't carriage of national (or international, in the case of Multimedios Televisión) services. It's been tagged for notability issues since 2014, and while it technically survived an AfD earlier this year, said AfD was the failed bulk nomination of 140 HC2/Innovate stations. I can't see any indication that this comes anywhere near meeting the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my rationale in the K04QR AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Another unnotable Innovate subfarm with no real local history. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anais da Associação Brasileira de Química

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2007; can't seem to find anything via WP:BEFORE (though someone else might be able to) other than this, which this article may have been copied from or it just mirrors this article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Brazil. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only indexing that I can find is the Chemical Abstracts Service (see here), which is not very selective. Misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept, not necessarily as it's own article, but it's a major journal and the Associação Brasileira de Química is a major association. The ideal solution would be to have the article on the association, and merge the journal there. If that article isn't created, then this can be draftified until the ABQ article is created, and the merge can be performed at that time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - No objection to draftification if Headbomb wants to work on an article for the association. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College–Harvard men's basketball rivalry

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

None of the sources in the article mention any rivalry between these schools, and a BEFORE check came up empty regarding WP:SIGCOV for this to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NRIVALRY. None of the sources cited mentions "rivalry". Owen× ☎ 18:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Nothing too significant in terms of sourcing either. Also, be sure to delete the statement in List of college rivalries in the United States. Conyo14 (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NRIVALRY. One of the AP articles listed as a reference calls Harvard "the local entry from the Ivy League" in relation to Boston College with no mention of the word rival. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathiuska Domínguez

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. I found plenty of passing mentions in my searches (1, 2, 3), but nothing that might indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Morocco women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soumia Hady

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

Redirect to List of Morocco women's international footballers. All I can find on the subject are passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Morocco. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidorah Namuesh

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

The subject seemingly made a single appearance for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa – Folge deinem Herzen

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

Unreferenced and undeveloped since 2011 with almost no content. Terasail ^[✉️] 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Terasail ^[✉️] 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasail, take a look at the German Wikipedia article's refs at de:Hanna – Folge deinem Herzen#Einzelnachweise. I think you'll find all the references you need to establish notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several of these refs to the article.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the german article has 2 deadlinks, 1 webarchive link that might aswell be dead, a webarchive link to a german page I can't read/translate and 2 short quotenmeter links which are written by the same person which doesn't scream notable. Terasail ^[✉️] 02:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The refs I added have working links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs added to article since AfD began. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - The sources added show notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life. Discounted the two IP keeps that geolocate to the same area as sockpuppet IPs of the checkuser-blocked article creator. Most of the other participants converged on redirect as the appropriate solution for now. RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shariq Hassan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Is the main antagonist of Pencil and has no other notability. He was the winner of the reality show BB Jodigal but that doesn't add much. WP:TOOEARLY, please redirect to Pencil (film). He also played the lead in the 5 episode YouTube series Kaalam Neram Kadhal. Is that notable? I smell COI because the article said his unreleased film "received an average reception from critics". [43].

Has a similar notability to Draft:Tharshan Thiyagarajah. This source talks about his lack of roles since Bigg Boss [44]. DareshMohan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find DareshMohan's explanation convincing and agree with him that redirect to Pencil (film)#Cast is a good solution for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) add. But really not opposed to Keep as his notoriety is also indeed clearly associated with Bigg Boss and a redirect would make that pehaps unclear. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below for other possible target of a redirect. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by the Times of India, on multiple occasions, is more than enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only notable factor i found a role in Pencil and BigBoss. 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Has major roles in atleast more then 2 films and has appeared in a major and highly popular reality show in India and is exposed to a high ratio of audiences in the Indian entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9425:5800:C58C:FF1D:D300:BA78 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:8003:9425:5800:C58C:FF1D:D300:BA78: Please list the films. He only starred in 2, one was a minor role. DareshMohan (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Provides enough information to show the individual is notable in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.219.179 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, ToF counts as one source so no matter how in-depth and substantial any of those pieces are they still do not amount to GNG. This is even ignoring the tabloid quality of the ToF articles.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what is "ToF"?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)? (did you mean The Times of India? if so, only ~~one~~ 2 articles from this periodical are cited on the page, one addressing directly and in-depth the career of Shariq Hassan, the second clearly there only for verification of his presence in the cast of a future film.)[reply]

This was addressing the claim above that Coverage by the Times of India, on multiple occasions, is more than enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, it's generally abbreviated as TOI rather than ToF, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: @DJ InstaMalik: @JoelleJay: Would you support a redirect to his father Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life with a sentence about him? Clearly Wikipedia:TOOSOON. DareshMohan (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works for me! (but not strongly opposed to keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is his summary: Shariq Hassan, an actor who appeared in the film Pencil (2016) and the son of Riyaz Khan. See Bigg Boss (Tamil season 2)#Housemates. @OwenX: He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR now, also The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. DareshMohan (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to NHS ambulance services. Consensus is against a standalone article. History remains under the redirect if a merge is deemed necessary. Star Mississippi 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance services trust

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

Mostly regurgiated article. "Ambulance services trust" is not a legal entity, as by defintion all are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, and none of the cited sources specifically mention this term.

The rest of the article is a regurgitation / duplicate of information covered at NHS ambulance services. Elshad (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while not a legal term, which seems to be the objection, it is nevertheless a class of trust with a specific role. This page is the only page on Wikipedia that records the history of geographical coverage. Millstream3 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to NHS ambulance services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems an important part of a wider scope on the subject matter. Also, needs to add the "UK ambulance service" navbox — Maile (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to NHS ambulance services. No need for this content fork. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I hope some editors can spend time improving this article and adding new sources to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct care

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

The term "direct care" could mean almost anything in the English language e.g. "I am taking direct care of my dog", "The painting was placed under direct care of the museum". With regards to its meaning in the NHS, I could only find a single reputable source here, and even so that does not justify an article.

Essentially this is an incredibly vague term, which perhaps has a specific niche meaning in the NHS, but certainly not enough to warrant an article.

The article is essentially saying "direct care is the direct care of a patient in the NHS".

Most of the rest is just tangential information about nursing, audit etc.

None of the cited sources are about the term itself.

One of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Elshad (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- The article clearly scopes the subject in the lede so the ambiguity discussed in the nom doesn't apply. There is strong, sustained, extensive discussion of this subject in journals [45], [46], [47], [48]. The article desperately needs editing and expansion, not deletion (WP:DINC). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- there are many uses of the term in the NHS itself[49], and beyond in the week before this deletion request[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[]. If the proposer was a registered veterinarian, they could take direct care of their dog, otherwise you're just staff (although this applies more to cats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSmithonWP (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Direct care (NHS)" if independent sources establish notability beyond a DICDEF. Otherwise, Delete. Owen× ☎
Keep as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Last1in and SamSmithonWP — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. consensus is that topic meets our notability guidelines for professors, if just barely 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Yipp

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

Fails GNG. Fails NPROF, unless being a Canada Research Chair qualifies? Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recent AfDs that involved Canada Research Chairs:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Roberts -delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Talwar -- delete (this was a requested delete)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebrahim Bagheri -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Marsh -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard van Herk -- redirect to professor's garage rock band
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gosse -- keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosto Mostapha Bousmina -- keep

There are a total of 1,993 Canada Research Chairs. Some commenters opined in these AfDs that only tier 1 Canada Research Chairs should count towards WP:PROF#C5. See Canada Research Chair#Types of chairs: tier 1 chairs are for senior academics and constitute 38% of Canada Research Chairs. The remaining 62% are tier 2 chairs for promising junior academics with potential, such as Bryan Yipp.^[55] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is an assistant professor and tier 2 CRC. Whatever one thinks about tier 1 CRCs, that definitely doesn't count for WP:PROF#C5, which is only for above-full-professor level appointments. That said, he seems to be the go-to expert on NETosis (two first-author papers with 4-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, seemingly the top-cited two works on that subject), so I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I agree with David, while a CRC Tier 2 is an early career award and does not count towards NPROF, I think with his strong expertise on a niche field, three publications with 1000+ citations each and a healthy h-index of 23, he passes the NPROF#1 -- not by much since he is still early career but there is enough for a pass. --hroest 15:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really see any reason to get in the way of a delete on this article, which is a one-sentence stub that would be eligible for G5 deletion if this AfD hadn't been opened instead. I realize that isn't exactly an argument for deletion, which is why this isn't a !vote, but I think it's context to keep in mind, given that no one has advanced a strong keep argument. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect that this article would be eligible for G5 deletion. G5 is only for articles created by already-indef-blocked (or banned) editors evading their block. This article was created in March 2017; the SPI that banned SwisterTwister was not initiated until December 2017. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Disregard, then. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. I added two significant cites from CTV News, a well-respected major national mainstream news outlet. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Randolph–Macon Yellow Jackets football team

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

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV has been found in independent, reliable sources with in-depth discussion of this team. The article was created in 2016 as a micro-stub with no substantive content. More than seven years later, the only content that has been added is an unsourced schedule chart reciting that the team lost two games on unspecified dates and at unspecified locations. (As an additional nail in the coffin, it appears from this source that this was a season of association football (i.e., soccer) rather than gridiron football as the article asserts.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. Moshe1022 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage available. The subject is ancient, so it's unsurprising nothing came up. Happy to change to keep if someone provides sources, I cannot find anything. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, nothing is here to show this meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASON. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella García-Manzo}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghetto Love (Karl Wolf song)}}<!--Relisted-->