Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 11	December 13 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gendel

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

This article has been marked as unnotable since April 2017. After checking the revision history of this article, I noticed that there were no significant improvements. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Reference 10, plus this article: [1], should be enough to establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an article. It's an advertisement. In a shop. Selling his product. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got me, I didn't realize that was a commercial site. Striking my Keep and going with weak delete (weak because I still stand by reference 10). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SolxrgashiUnited, fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a Google search, and from what I can tell, his version of Barbara Allen makes him almost a one hit wonder. That's it. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Zerban

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

Delete or Redirect. The first is that he was a member of the Kenosha County Board of Commissioners. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell), the latter of which is probably more a WP:CRIME who was also a politician. The second is his candidacies for Congress. I simply do not see the "historic significance" test being passed here given the last election was over ten years ago at this point. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar AfDs resulted in a delete/redirect in Andy Anderson, Bill Proctor, Veron Parker, and Steve Sarvi. Mpen320 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our threshold levels of WP:POLITICIAN. (Full disclosure: I may have donated some money to one or more of his Congressional races, since I despise his opponent.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - arguably passes WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally understood that routine mention or even interviews of unsuccessful candidates by local press does not really constitute significant coverage of the individual as an individual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (unsuccessful candidate in the past)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Skynxnex (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite the coverage for a local politician to meet WP:NPOL. Most of the coverage on him appears to be related to his failed congressional runs. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm persuaded to go along with delete. Bearian (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Tsang

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hong Kong. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. All coverage is sourced to poker stat databases and other poker news sites merely covering the events subject has taken part in. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this book titled I Am a Gambler: The 73rd Industry that Disrupts Your Traditional Views on Gambling (Chinese: 我是牌手──顛覆您對賭博傳統看法的第七十三行業) published by https://www.red-publish.com/ that profiles him on pages 107–116. I found a few paragraphs of coverage in this article from Card Player. The other sources I found were sponsored sources from natural8 like this Chinese-language article and this English-language article. I think the book is a reliable source. His notability hinges on whether Card Player is also a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, Card Player looks reliable enough in that they separate editorial and sales, it doesn't look like coverage is obviously shaped by advertisers, and while the magazine might have a bias towards positivity they covered the use of laptop/consulting by Jonathan Tamayo at the WSOP[2] (if they cover the resulting rules change it will be in a December magazine). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the analysis, Hydronium Hydroxide (talk · contribs), indicating that the Card Player article is sufficiently reliable. In that case I support keeping the article as there is enough coverage on pages 107–116 of the book and the Card Player article to allow Anson Tang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Cunard. The advice from WikiProject Poker also suggests that a player who has won a WSOP event is likely notable – it looks like the subject has won several. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not give that advice much weight for current players - see World Series of Poker#Number of bracelet events per year for the significant rise in WSOP events over the years - and his 2 European & 1 online bracelets don't look like they should be considered anywhere near presumed notability (see CardPlayer for his results). That said, the Global Poker Index shows his top ranking was 32nd in the world[3], and he's 533rd in all-time winnings. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Gabrielle

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Current references are all either primary sources or trivial mentions. Without any significant achievements I do not think that a naval aviation career is inherently notable (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_United_States_Naval_Aviators other subjects achieved individual milestones in the history of the field or pass NPERSON outside of the profession), nor is being a news correspondent (does not appear to have reported significant stories or been referenced as notable in the field; ie, fails the WP:JOURNALIST subsection of NPERSON). Arguably secondary converage of appointment to US government position ([4]) but as I cannot find coverage of any accomplishments in said position I do not think this makes her notable independently of Global Engagement Center. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done some tidying up and removed sourcing to her LinkedIn account. The top three sources are:[5],[6],[7]. She has coverage that is sustained across multiple careers, from her time at Fox, NBC, in the U.S. State Department, and now Mount Snow (though that later one is quite recent). DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. In addition to references DaffodilOcean mentioned above there’s also this one in the article [8] Nnev66 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the new improvements on the page. Clearly meets wp:GNG. Kaizenify (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq

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

Full of OR and SYNTH mess, cited with poor sources that were being dealt with. At best a hoax fan PoV that should not have been in the mainspace at the first place. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Odisha, and West Bengal. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Created by a prolific LTA that has a history of creating similar poorly sourced and pseudohistorical POV articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has been edited by multiple non-sock edits since it's creation by a banned editor. If the article isn't eligible for speedy deletion under G5 then the argument that it was created by a LTA is not a policy based argument. In regards that the article is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, no argument has been provided why the article is beyond redemption and therefore WP:TNT is necessary. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to deal with the unreliable sources that were being cited by the initial contributor, it is quite disorganised but here is why it is full of OR mess:

[9]: He was succeeded by Bhanudeva III during whose reign (1352-1378) Orissa began to show sign of decay. is certainly not coherent with "Firuz Shah Tughlaq advanced his forces all the way to Puri, where King Bhanudeva III bravely confronted the sultan's army. However, after a brief engagement, Bhanudeva III was defeated and subsequently fled to the forests for sanctuary." as written in the article. A blatant OR from the IC as usual. Also looking through the sources it looks like they do not have more than a line of a coverage hence the issue of SIGCOV remains. AfD is not a cleanup but that doesn not mean OR, SYNTH and SIGCOV should be disregarded, this is WP:FALLACY. Garuda ^Talk! 15:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no it's not WP:FALLACY because I didn't deny it's got WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reliable sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (example), or they don't even mention this episode, so there's a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR going on to build out this episode into a full article. (One source explicitly downplays this episode: "Feroz went back Delhi via Jajnagar. (Jajpur). Nothing is known about his desecration of the triad and plunder of the temple.") The only source to provide anything approaching WP:SIGCOV is published by Vij Books, which, if not an actual vanity press appears to have very low standards for publishing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of tumorigenicity 8 (ovarian)

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

This article appears to reference a gene that does not exist. Although a gene referred to as ST8 was initially identified, records referring to it have been discontinued and replaced in reliable databases. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/6765. As far as I can make out, the page was automatically created by a bot, followed by someone going through and adding unrelated information from articles referencing other genes. For example, the article references Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Jul;55(1):143-9, (PMID: 8023842) however, this journal article refers to the IFNA gene, which is on a completely different chromosome. I have been unable to identify reliable sources on pubmed referring to this gene. Unless someone else can find anything confirming its existence, I believe this article should be deleted as Unverifiable. Jared BioE (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Medicine. Jared BioE (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doomsday device#In fiction with the option of merging the small portion of content that editors find to be encyclopedic. Clear consensus against a list in its current form. Some reasonable evidence has been put forward of the notability of the concept, but I cannot see a clear articulation of why this requires keeping the list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional doomsday devices

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

Almost entirely an indiscriminate list, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT. There is a sentence or two of cited content, but this can be added to doomsday device#in fiction if necessary, which already has a much more organized prose treatment of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and ultimately failing WP:NLIST. However, this looks to be so much work down the drain. I should hope the authors use this in the fandom wiki where I would expect to see it. I will say this Wired source is at least a partial source, just not very significant. Conyo14 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge those few reliable sources at the very end of this article to Doomsday device, and nothing else. As described in the nom and the preceding comment, the rest of the list fails multiple categories of WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (amended, see discussion below. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)) Looking for sources, American Science Fiction and the Cold War, p. 43-45+, has significant coverage. Like the Wired article it concentrates on American fiction, but as the vast majority of the content also concentrates on that, that should not be a problem with regard to notability. Science Fact and Science Fiction, p. 292 has a brief paragraph on the topic. Most importantly, Science Fiction and Futurism, p. 66-70+, has a multipage chapter on the topic with the majority of it being dedicated to depictions in fiction. So I see WP:LISTN as fullfilled after all, all other problems can be solved be normal editing rather than deletion. Specifically, WP:INDISCRIMINATE by sticking to examples appearing in secondary sources like those listed. The trimming is hopefully done after checking if the individual entries are treated in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another relevant secondary source is the Weapons article of the Science Fiction Encyclopedia, which contains a pragraph on doomsday devices, and even more on planet-killing weapons. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are passionate about saving the article, then I am willing to reconsider the AfD if a full rewrite is conducted. But nobody has cared to fix it for 20 years, so the argument that it "could" be solved by editing rings hollow. If the AfD results in the article being fixed, then it would be successful as well, but in this state it likely shouldn't exist. It may be easier to let this article go and start fresh with a prose article at Doomsday devices in fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've let myself be drafted into working on articles which were not on my agenda quite a lot recently, after simply expressing my opinion in AfDs (Tralfamadore...). So, no, I do not plan to also take on this one myself, I have a backlog of previous stuff. If you are passionate about not liking the current state of the article, you are likewise invited to fix it. That's the course of action suggested by policy in a case where secondary sources establishing notability have been found, not deletion. Granted, 17 years is a long time, but "Nobody's working on it" is still an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. (And there's of course the underlying problem that nominating an article for deletion is comparatively easy, but fixing things is not, and neither would be creating a more decent article from scratch.) Daranios (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it takes significant effort to fix bad content is, I would think, precisely the point. Why keep the bad content around on the off chance that somebody will fix it somewhere down the line (even when nobody has done so after many years) when we have the perfectly cromulent alternative option of retaining the good content elsewhere while removing the bad content? Somebody could, perhaps, recreate a good version of this in the future—though frankly, the likelihood of this (or basically any other List of X in fiction article, for that matter) ever becoming good content seems very slim—but the current version would be no help whatsoever. Better to keep the good content and remove the bad content, no? TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the good content within this list with the help of the found (and ideally other) secondary sources and removing bad content in this list is totally fine with me. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What good content would that be—could you exemplify? Taking a look at a sample of the entries, I see a collection of WP:RAWDATA about fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least the parts referenced to secondary sources (possibly with the exception of Palumbo; I cannot access it so I don't know if there is commentary); Star Trek's The Doomsday Machine (as appearing in secondary sources); Ender's Game's Molecular Disruption Device (attested here); Dr. Strangelove; the Death Star, Babylon Five's Planet Killers, possibly the other entries from the Wired article and possible more with regard to the planet killer discussion below. Unfortunately, Google Books no longer gives me access to the relevant pages from Science Fiction and Futurism. Checking the other secondary sources again there is significantly less overlap between what they cover and what we have here than I expected. So the resolution of the discussion below notwithstanding, it is little enough that I am (in the interest of consensus-building, as Shooterwalker would say) no longer opposed to merging such content to Doomsday device#in fiction until such time as someone would like to use the found sources to expand again. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, do you think the what we have on the list dealing with e.g. The Doomsday Machine is currently good content, or has the potential to be good content? TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the listed content would have a place in a good article, if that answers the question. I do not think it is complete as "good content", some parts obviously lacking references, and more commentary globally and for individual entries is needed. All of which can be achieved through normal editing using the listed secondary sources (and possibly others). Daranios (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That sounds like what I would call having the potential to be good content rather than currently being good content. "This should probably be covered, but not like this", basically. I do agree on the need for global commentary in particular; list formats are unfortunately very ill-suited for that purpose. TompaDompa (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, in contrast, an introductory paragraph to a list article can be a perfectly well-suited place for global commentary, other WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations notwithstanding. Daranios (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in theory (and certainly for other kinds of list articles), but I don't think I've ever seen that work in practice for these types of X in fiction articles while striking an appropriate balance between overarching analysis and providing examples—every instance I can recall has either messed up that balance completely with excessive examples or presented a low number of examples in list format that would have been better integrated into the prose (or in some cases, a kind of mix of both issues). There's a reason specialized encyclopedias—at least in the area of science fiction, where I'm most active—like The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia don't use such a format. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Fair points, but isn't doomsday device sufficient? This can be redirected there, which is what my preference is. Rescuable content form this can be merged there. The target article is not too long. If we end up with some well referenced list that is getting to long, this could be recreated, but frankly, I am not sure the sources exist for a 'list' type of coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partially per Rorshacma. Once you clean-up the unreliable list, there are only a few sentences in reliable secondary literature. Re-creating this as doomsday devices in fiction is premature, and it's best to work on this at the main article until there is evidence we can write a significant and reliable article of its own. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things are more complicated than they seemed first, as there actually have been 2 deletion discussion before this one, referenced on the talk page. This was when this page was still named Planet killer, and the name was changed after a move discussion with rather little participation. Planet killer still redirects here, so both "doomsday devices" and "planet killers" (and the synonyms planet-wrecker, planet-buster, planet-smasher as attested by Brave New Words - The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction) fall within the scope of this article. I know notability is not the only concern here, but the last such discussion, which strangely was named Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet killer 2, does feature additional secondary sources. In the end I am not sure it is a good idea to put these two terms together, as I feel there is a difference. (Like, a planet-killer functions a doomsday device for a one-planet civilization, but no longer for a space opera multi-planet society, where it "only" becomes a superweapon, a third related term.) But that explains why a number of examples here feel unexpected for the more narrow definition of doomsday device as it appears in e.g. Dr. Strangelove. So how to deal with that aspect? Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a typical kind of problem when articles are written "backwards", i.e. with content coming first and sources later (or not at all, as the case may be). The only way to solve it is to do what should have been done in the first place: survey the relevant literature and treat the topic(s) as the sources do. One might call it a WP:SYNTH problem, but given the lack of sources cited in the article I think it's probably just plain old WP:Original research of the "this looks like a reasonable topic/scope to me" variety. Editors eyeballing scopes like that, particularly in the form of media WP:ANALYSIS, used to be rather common in the early days of Wikipedia and we are still cleaning up the messes that left behind (compare e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against superheroes). I think the best option right now is to merge whatever content is properly sourced to wherever it properly belongs and then leaving it to whoever happens to be so inclined to create articles on the topics of Doomsday devices in fiction, Planet killers in fiction, and so on based strictly on sources on those topics at some point in the future—a fresh start, if you will. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doomsday device#In fiction. I would say merge, but what little properly-sourced content there currently is here (at the end of the article—some of the entries in the list itself are cited to Wikipedia articles either in reference tags as with Stargate or inline as with Dr. Strangelove) isn't really a good fit as it is more about terminology and non-fiction writing on the subject. The sources, on the other hand, may be of use. The above-mentioned scope issues amply demonstrate that coverage of the topic (or topics, as the case may be) needs to be based on sources on the overarching topic (as indeed it always must) rather than by the approach that has been taken here.
More broadly, I have yet to see an article of this variety that would not be much better in prose format. Compiling examples of X in fiction quickly turns into an indiscriminate accumulation of WP:RAWDATA (the 2008 essay WP:CARGO explains rather well how and why this is a problem for articles like this), or in other words, basically an exercise in stamp collecting. Writing prose articles on such topics, on the other hand, allows for high-quality content with appropriately-sourced overarching analysis and proper adherence to policies such as WP:PROPORTION.
I thus find the WP:LISTN argument wholly unpersuasive; we don't have to choose a list format for notable topics. As an example: List of rainy days in London arguably meets our notability criteria for lists, but Climate of London is obviously the correct way to handle the topic. The argument instead needs to be a WP:PAGEDECIDE one, namely that covering the topic as a list is preferable to covering it in prose format, or else that covering it across two articles (i.e. a list in addition to a prose article) is preferable to covering it in a single one (only a prose article). This is pretty much never the case for articles on fiction. As I have said before (at WP:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction), compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doomsday device#In fiction per TompaDompa. There's some decent coverage of the concept, but the current article and the way the topic would be covered violates how Wikipedia functions, and is better off left to the parent article in a much shorter, more compact, more well-cited area. Unopposed to a Merge should that be considered a better outcome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TompaDompa. Most of this is unsourced and should not be preserved in any way. If editors are suggesting a new article, create that, and leave this out of it. Jontesta (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women). Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vancouver Whitecaps Women players

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of third party coverage as a grouping. PROD in 2009 was removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again NLIST states that's "one accepted reason why," not the "only reason why." I have no other opinion on this yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women). It definitely needs references. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Hasan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Not enough notability to warrant a standalone article, at least not at this time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable actor. The sources in the article say it all. Mekomo (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally Non-notable actor and singer, does not have any coverage in any reliable source. I have fixed the citations, it's only three. Actor played small roles in the notable films, that does not proves notability. Taabii (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actor Even a simple google search turns up either his social media or some random blogpost The AP (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yu

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

Unnotable chinese politician. It cites 5 pubications from shady sites that are not adequate for notability. I found no significant coverage about him online. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Adding sources is not a difficult task. Given that the individual is a Chinese, it is advisable to conduct a direct search for Chinese profiles. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although TinaLees-Jones's comment above looks like WP:ILIKEIT, they have in fact expanded the article significantly since the nomination. Sources like [10] are far-and-away SIGCOV, and the subject's various positions mean they likely meet NPROF, NJOURNALIST, and NPOL (some more than others). Very clear Keep from me. Toadspike [Talk] 11:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improved sources after nomination. The current sources meet at least WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bevan

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

Non-notable RL player. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at Trove, other than a few mentions of him being the father of his much more famous son. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. Nomination fails to raise a cas as to why this needs to be deleted when the obvious alternative of a Redirect to List of Sydney Roosters players is there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed now that the is a delete comment below. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a redirect, but why not simply recommend that rather than "speedy keep"? In any case, I would disagree that the above redirect target is obvious, when his bigger claim to fame is that he was Brian Bevan's father. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and notability not inherited. RLP gives the name as Eric Bevan, and a search for this gives only a few results on Trove, the most detailed on which, from 1950, just notes that Brian's father used to play and which teams he played for. I am not sure how useful a redirect to the list of players would be as there are only three other links to the article – on Brian Bevan, where the name is already preceded by a link to the club, the families list where he appears next to the link to Brian, and on the Richard Bevan dab page where his inclusion does not seem particularly relevant. EdwardUK (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Edward's reasons. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. We rarely have articles for players of one first grade game. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EP Entertainment

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

Unnotable entertainment company. There is no significant coverage of it. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL management division of bigger record company, and their one name artist moved on years ago. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable entertainment company. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This should never have been here. Nominator does not want the article deleted. There are ways to avoid edit warring without abusing the AFD process. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Gonna Take the Weight?

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

I turned this page, formerly a redirect to a Luke Cage episode, into a disambiguation page, since several topics covered on the encyclopedia are named this. Gonnym noticed this, either because he added it to his watchlist after having previously added redirect categories to it or because User:Gonnym/sandbox/Outline MCU episodes links to it. Gonnym restored the redirect and reverted my revert of his action, and so to avoid an edit war I have started this discission. Count me as a Keep voter. Mach61 18:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors changing redirect pages should familiarize with how to correctly do so. Many redirect pages don't have active watchers and so when a page like this gets hijacked, a lot gets lost. In this case there were 3 links (not counting my own) to the redirect. Only one was moved, leaving the two file namespace links broken. Additionally, television episode redirects are valid redirects and per WP:NOTBROKEN should not be turned to plain links like was done in Mach61's only "fix".

So to recap:

The project lost a valid television episode redirect that was in use
Two links were left broken
One link was left worse off

And all for a disambiguation page that other than the television episode, does not even link to any anchor.

What should have been done, if the page really needs to be turned into a disambiguation page (the non-anchor links show that maybe this episode is the primary), is

move the page to Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (Luke Cage) per WP:NCTV
fix ALL incoming links, not just those in the article space
use the redirect link in the disambiguation page as norm

Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym. I accept that not updating the links on the file pages was suboptimal (I deliberately avoided editing your sandbox, since many editors do not want others editing their user subpages under any circumstances). However, my not following 100% of the proper procedures does not justify you removing a valid disambiguation page, just as a valid article with typos in it shouldn't be deleted for that; WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. You could have resolved this yourself without edit warring by copying the redirect to Who's Gonna Take the Weight (Luke Cage) with attribution. Mach61 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Also, and this is the most relevant to the AFD itself, why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? The fact that there aren't even links to the targets (just general links to articles that mention them) is one sign that it doesn't. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? A note on my user talk page
Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Because this is as collaborative project built on imperfect net-positive contribitons. If what I replaced the redirect with was a negative contribution (e.g. vandalism), than sure, revert that, but the disambiguation page was valid.
Why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? This question can be answered with an WP:RM and is in fact irrelevant to this AFD.

Mach61 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Mach61 19:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect None of the subjects have articles of their own and I don't feel like a conversion to a dab for such a random phrase is really needed. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not entirely sure this is the right venue for this. It seems to be better suited for WP:RFD. That being said restore previous redirect per above. Dab's are for navigational purposes in Wikipedia and that is not needed in this case. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page and fix any incoming links which need to be fixed. All the dab page entries appear to be places where a redirect would be appropriate, and as there are multiple, with no indication which is the primary topic, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 08:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @MrSchimpf: @Esolo5002:, linking to pages that reference a topic with a specific name is allowed in dabs per WP:DABMENTION. Besides, the episode also does not have an article; if someone first created the redirect to one of the other subjects, I can't imagine any of you would defend retargeting it to the TV show page unilaterally. Mach61 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For four of them and all so unrelated and random (and without getting into the weeds, some of them just seem to be a cover of the same song)? That's not what DABMENTION is intended for. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf How are any of these links more "random" than the link to the season page? They are all referrals from the title of a creative work to related supertopics, just like a link from an episode title to the season the episode is in. The existence of {{r from book}} and {{r from song}} shows that redirects of this sort are accepted, and a disambiguation page is how to resolve a title being a valid redirect to multiple articles. And no, none of the songs are covers of one another (apprapos of nothing, the Luke Cage episode that you want restored is apparently named after the Gang Starr song). Mach61 02:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DAB[11] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DAB, largely per PamD above. The entries are not individually notable, but the title could reasonably redirect to each of them: I don't see a strong case being made for a primary topic, and my own search suggests that at least three of those entries have about equal prominence. I'm not certain this needed to come to AfD; fixing links is an easy thing to do, surely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Afghanistan Premier League. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Afghanistan Premier League

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

Event that never happened as it was repeatedly postponed. Doesn't meet WP:GNG so an article just listing lots of postponements is not required. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Afghanistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Shrug02 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Afghanistan Premier League? x RozuRozu • ^tea _cups 23:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan Premier League. Didn't happen, but was supposed to; the redirect is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan Premier League - even though it was repeatedly postponed, it was expected to happen ; and redirects are cheap The AP (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elips

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

Article about unnotable armenian band without sources. I was unable to find any information about it on the internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:SIGCOV. I doubt there will be any significant coverage in the future, either. Beachweak (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG

Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced since 2010 when it was created, and tagged for lack of sources since 2012, nothing has improved since then and there is nothing to improve it even now. Mekomo (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Glossary of video game terms#P. Sandstein 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper doll (video games)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is more of a thing for Glossary of video game terminology than its own article, IMO. Looking for SIGCOV, I only found articles about dress-up games, making it dubious whether this term even solely applies to this manner of character customization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term does not seem to be commonly used, based on Gbooks and Gsearch results. I can only see games where you actually put clothes on virtual dolls. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the first instance I've heard the term paper doll used in a video game setting, and I've not seen anything that shows this term in significant detail. It also doesn't help that there are games with similar titles to "Paper doll" in my searches. Conyo14 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glossary of video game terminology as WP:ATD-M: A single sentence def there should be enough. While the term is not very common, it looks like it is relatively established in this specific RPGish or technical meaning: many passing mentions in WP:VGRS, e.g. usage by devs talking about game design [12][13] and in patch notes [14], as well as in reviews [15]. It also appears on Google Books: [16] [17] [18], but as it's relatively limited to simple definitions and passing mentions, none of these establish enough WP:SIGCOV for a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuniToumei (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Glossary of video game terminology. It's possible this some of this information could be duplicated at an article about video game inventories. Do we even have an article like that? It's a broad enough concept to consider for an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RPG inventories are mentioned in Item (game terminology). There are sections for other genres but not RPGs. --Mika1h (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per YuniTumei above. It's listed here under "Common CRPG Terms". (Role-playing_video_game#Items and inventory would be preferable given that it includes a picture, but the glossary is fine in the interests of a close) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Community consensus now is that sportspeople need to pass WP:GNG like everyone else, and that participating at the top levels of a sport does not establish notability. The "keep" opinions therefore need to be disregarded. Sandstein 21:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Till Thomsen

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

A german curler who appeared once in the 1996 World Men's Curling Championship. There is nothing notable about him SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CURLING for having played in the World Championships.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Earl Andrew. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can furnish several references to reliable sources independent of Thomsen that devote significant coverage to Thomsen. According to WP:ATHLETE, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Meeting a special notability guideline indicates that a topic likely meets the GNG, but is not a guarantee that it does. So, now is the time to furnish the evidence or let the article be deleted. Cullen328 (talk)
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. All I found was this one-sentence mention of a tournament win and newspaper mentions like this about his participation at the 1996 Worlds. I imagine it would be difficult to find any in-depth coverage without access to German newspaper archives. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favour Agam

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

Not yet notable by WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find of him online is tame interviews like the sources currently cited, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. references dont seem in-depth and are just interviews. Not notable. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He started his "journey of discovery" in August 2023 [19], then has zero coverage until September 2024 [20]. A whole 5 hits in Gnews, 4 from September 2024. Very puffy articles, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article should be sent back to draftspace for incubation, the sources used are not reliable enough to meet the notability guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abike25 (talk • contribs)

Abike25, deletion does not hinder recreation. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The article lacks reliable sources and contains promotional content. Gwanki (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, please. This is an ad masquerading as an article. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ahmed

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

Reliable sources lack in-depth coverage of this subject, with only three cited in the article. Two of these are questionable and potentially unreliable, leading me to conclude that the subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely meets WP:GNG. Some of these should help: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite obvious that you have marked this for deletion because you are jealous. Anyone who grew up in the 80s in Karachi will say that Asad was one of the pioneers of rock music in Pakistan. 2601:155:27F:FE40:69DD:37CD:EF82:703 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gheus. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The musician looks notable, but a cleanup and rewriting is very much required with better inline citations. Zuck28 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Čapljina

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

The "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dubious topic, but a quorum would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mztourist and nom Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TechNext

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

Just mere mentions in the press. Article creator blocked as SOCK. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources (at least the online ones) only contain passing mentions of the company; for example, source 2 literally just contains the phrase "The researchers have also launched a startup called Technext" and that's it. Others such as this source only give a small description of the company. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ORGCRIT due to the lack of significant coverage. Beachweak (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the sources contain significant coverage of the company itself with most of the mentions being trivial. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

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

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An analysis of sources:

Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.

In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. I'm still not convinced that notability is met. Procyon117 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR. His works are being used by the Open University,[34] The University of Manchester,[35] The Canadian Encyclopedia [36], the California Council on Economic Education.[37] etc. Herinalian (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly isn't borne out by the links you've provided, but even if it were true it would have no relevance to WP:AUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Axad12 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it with fire. WP:PROMO for a non-notable YouTube crank. His books are self-published; there are no independent reviews for a WP:AUTHOR pass. There is no WP:SIGCOV in any independent, reliable, secondary source, so he fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding customs by country

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

Wedding customs by country is too unwieldy and too vague to be useful to anyone Drew Stanley (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this nomination to use {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't actually have a problem with the subject-matter, because an overview of interesting wedding customs is very much an encyclopedic subject, and easily sourced. It is indeed unwieldy if each section becomes too detailed, but it can always have "Main article..." links to longer articles. But the current title is fundamentally wrong. It should be Wedding customs by culture or something like that. Taking one small country, that's part of a larger unit, namely "England", we have large communities who've lived here for generations but whose culture traces back to something else, and whose weddings have more in common with an Indian wedding (for example) than a horse-and-carriage pretty village church archetypical "English" wedding, and yet these people are as much part of England as I am and their customs are now as much a valid part of English life as mine. If the article must do it by country, it will certainly be way too unwieldy, because the "England" section alone will have to address almost every wedding custom seen in the world. Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then it would still be better to delete and make a new article based on existing wedding customs-related articles; it would be better sourcesDrew Stanley (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the broader topic and grouping is clearly covered by cultural scholars--not just individually but as a comparative study between countries. While I understand OP's concerns, I don't actually believe this article is so bad we need to WP:TNT it. And for better or worse, when it comes to a lot of these cultures where we won't have the manpower to put together an entire article about their wedding culture, "by country" serves as a useful base divider. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems fine as a broad overview of the subject. It's fairly lengthy with some decent sourcing. I see no reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason for deletion. Good sourced and interesting matter. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gleep fleep flip florp glip glorp beeeeeeeep, etc, seems perfectly notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Rework the format. As is, this is a bit of a mess that is duplicating what is already out there elsewhere. Here's a solution: keep a lead introduction paragraph, and sort the rest into an orderly list. Set up a table format similar to Women in Guam History. The left-hand first column would link a country main article. Next to the column on the far right, no more than a sentence or two about each item . Use the far right-hand column for any reference. It might take a team to complete. But it would sure improve this mess. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbolick, who I think is referring to WP:IAR. Who doesn't love a wedding? Normal editing processes can fix the issues that are in the article. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Really just mean it's obviously WP:LISTN notable, though. No rule-ignoring required. Bleep bloop. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately nobody has fixed the article even if it is fixable

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake2Lake Trail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had second thoughts _Marshelec (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Marshelec lists some additional sources, but I don't think repeated mentions in the same regional paper constitute significant coverage. The only other mention I can find is here [38]https://www.odt.co.nz/southland/bit-more-help-needed-popular-fiordland-trail , and that's not really significant coverage either, and might be a re-publication of one of the Southland Times articles; I just don't think there's enough there for a whole article. I think the current content could be turned into a couple of extra sentences on the Manapouri and/or Te Anau articles at best. JeffUK 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replace with alternative article The content in the existing article is unsourced and I cannot find adequate sources to back it up. On reflection I have realised that it would be more useful for readers of the encyclopedia to have an article about the trails than the organisation that has planned and created them. So I have created a new article. See: Lake2Lake Trail There is more work to do, but this is a start._Marshelec (talk)
Redirect to Lake2Lake Trail. Well done, Marshelec. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

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

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. I managed to find this interview with Heaven's Metal, but the write-up is a small paragraph only and the rest is statements by the label owner in response to interview questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not locate any significant coverage to support the company's notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seowon (singer)

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's promotional debut-related reportings from WP:BEFORE. Suggesting a hard delete (a fresh redirect could be created again, if necessary, without history) since an exact Draft:Seowon (singer) created by the same editor already exists. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are very poor. Also not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParvatPrakash (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as per nom. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Harris (sprinter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, specifically "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"; does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, to have been successful in a major competition, or won a significant honor, as described in WP:ATHLETE Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per these three sources. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three sources clearly refer to a different Harris -- the Wikipedia article is about a sprinter, but the articles all refer to him as a middle distance runner. The Wikipedia article says he was born in 1956, but the second source says he was 31 in 1996 (i.e. born ca. 1965), and the third source says he was 21 in 1987 (so born ca. 1966). Not the same guy. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take your word for it, struck my !vote accordingly. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject tied the world record in the 4 × 220 yards relay and was an NCAA Division I champion, was covered in e.g. "Harris Looking For Better Times". The Daily Progress. 10 Apr 1977. p. 34. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Trackmen Ready For 1980". The Daily Progress. 4 Aug 1976. p. 13. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Rushed to Russia: Harris takes whirlwind trip". The Daily Advance. 21 Aug 1979. p. 22. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Sports Festival Was Not All Fun". The Daily Progress. 12 Aug 1979. p. 32. Retrieved 5 December 2024. I'll try to incorporate these into the article soon but wanted to get this out before everyone puts their !votes in. --Habst (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet NTRACK and unclear if that threshold could ever be met, but some of the information above could be placed into more notable articles, such as the NCAA Championship. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, subject actually does meet NTRACK prong 2 for his international Universiade gold medal. He also tied world records in both the 4 × 220 y and 4 × 200 m. Of course, whether he meets NTRACK doesn't really matter as long as he meets GNG which I think is demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: If someone can add that information to the article with references, I'd be happy to alter my opinion. I see there is that box there, but wondering why it's not mentioned beyond that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, thanks, I expanded the article and added some context on that medal. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updating my opinion to Weak Keep Would like to see more expansion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article greatly expanded. A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject notable enough with multiple international accolades. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX Exchange

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

Non-notable crypto company. All sources online are PR. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found, reliable or otherwise. Not only does the coverage found online consist of press releases, but they are copies of the same two press releases and then some outright advertising. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing shows this company as passing inclusion criteria. All sources are not independent. Mekomo (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there are TWO hits in Gnews, both PR items. They've got coverage on the Big News Network (I wish I was making this up) [39], so we're a long, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about these guys online. Definitely falls under WP:NARTIST. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in the article looks good. And, I am able to find plenty more sources online. Wired has covered this in 2008 at https://www.wired.com/2008/08/comic-books-on/ and in 2009 at https://www.wired.com/2009/05/the-premier-edition-of-the-geekdad-stack-comics-for-your-kids-you/ Meets WP:GNG. Asparagusstar (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as is and per Asparagusstar newly found sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2010#July–December. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmalokam To Yamalokam Via Bhulokam

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

Fails WP:NFILM since the creation of this article [40]. A search in English or Telugu yield no reliable sources [41]. Only sources found were passing mentions: [42] [43] [44]. Webdunia production source(no link on Wikipedia) isn't enough to save the article. DareshMohan (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2010#July–December: but given the participation of notable film personalities, not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added two reviews from the sources available. Please check if it can suffice - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- does not suffice. Both GreatAndhra and 123telugu are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. DareshMohan (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Savary

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not even come close to meeting the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Includes two local publications; I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is important to keep in mind that more sources exist than are present in the articles. SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is correct that he fails WP:NSKATE, but I agree with JTtheOG that there's sufficient WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bronx poisoning

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have lasting significance, i.e., continued coverage beyond routine news reports at the time of the incident and at time of the federal criminal complaints, sentencing, etc., of connected people. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Social science, and New York. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find any non-routine coverage of the poisoning. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, this fails WP:NEVENT and contravenes WP:NOTNEWS; every source I could see is routine coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These sources (which don't appear to be routine coverage), [45] [46] [47], already provide continued significant and in-depth coverage of the case. Lasting effects arising from this case are possible, but as of yet, haven't happened yet. Quoting from the first article linked: “I’m very sorry, but one of the things my child care inspectors are not trained to do is look for fentanyl,” Dr. Ashwin Vasan, the city’s health commissioner said. [...] “But maybe we need to start,” the commissioner added. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Wikipedia is not a news tabloid that redirects to Wikinews. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories [as] Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. The sources above are secondary and are not first-hand reports on breaking news since they provide continued coverage, along with analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable enough event with SIGCOV. Andre🚐 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of Not News. There was significant coverage in New York metro media for two days. Then there was the usual coverage of the plea bargain. That's it. I feel sorry because I grew up in the area and taught over the course of four years in the Bronx. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sad and strange story but not a notable topic. There have been over 100,000 drug overdose deaths per year for quite a few years in the United States. The age of the victim does not make this single death notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, it must have some sort of lasting significance and this is just a one-off odd situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or perhaps even merge into Opioid epidemic in the United States. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Lives

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, some trivial mentions from reliable sources. Beyond that, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [48]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article lacks notability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sink Cat Based on your rationale, I assume you meant to write "Delete" in bold, not "Support"? It is clearer when AfD !votes are for a specific outcome, rather than just supporting the nomination. The nominator could change their mind, for instance, or (like in this case) not specify the outcome they're seeking. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes I had meant delete. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sourcing that could be used.[49][50][51] etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rolling. There are additional sources as well I found off a quick Google search [52] [53] [54]. It meets WP:GNG, but the article is in desperate need of inline sourcing and copyediting. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it meets GNG, given the sources identified above. But it certainly needs a significant rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An organization that seems to have an international presence. Enough sources presented above. Found a couple more (not great ones): [55], [56]. Agree completely, this article needs a lot of work. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Cottrill

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being C-suite at a company is not an inherent designator of notability, especially for a company that isn't even in the Global 2000. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE industry reporting of the movement of executives, not WP:SIGCOV of the subject himself. Other coverage is in relation to who his daughter is or is WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Golf. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty poor but there are several full-length articles about him in AdWeek, plus the one listed in the article in Forbes. There is definitely more reliable content that could be added to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article that can be improved and better sources would be preferable, but currently this article seems admissible to me, it appeared in Adweek and Forbes SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to ABC Records. While there is consensus to retain the material, there does not appear to be one to retain as a standalone. Star Mississippi 02:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt Records

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

References only one source and a google search does not yield much notability (i.e: a few questionable sources; Discogs, Rate Your Music, Both Sides Now Publications. Notability seems thin here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, this is a discontinued label, so much of the info may be in newspapers from its era. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ABC Records: this was its parent label and Apt Records is mentioned there, making it a viable-enough alternative to deletion barring the emergence of more-substantial sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ABC Records. Completely agree with above. I think there's some useful information in the article that could be used within ABC Records, but not enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ rather than redirect. This was just a sublabel for singles releases of ABC, but the label history is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the parent article. Chubbles (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or keep! based on below efforts. Chubbles (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found at [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], Billboard January 30, 1965 page 4, the liner notes of this, [62] (I consider this a reliable source, it is curated and used by academic sources), 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for what it’s worth regarding nom statement, Discogs and Rate Your Music are not reliable. Both Sides Now is reliable, but what’s there regarding Apt isn’t significant coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at User_talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apt_Records.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I think there's a potential editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be a stand-alone page - the Billboard coverage is clearly good coverage, I'm not entirely convinced liner notes and a list of releases get us to GNG but there's definitely sources we can use to write about the label. Whether a sub-label should be on the parent page or not isn't something I really care about, but the article as it reads currently is in pretty bad shape and if it's not significantly updated, a merge might be a better option. But while AfD can function as a merge discussion, my entire point is that there's enough sources that we don't need to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ABC Records - This is a company (or a subsidiary of one), so the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. That means coverage must be at WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable and secondary sources. The run of sources provided are mostly all from Billboard and count as a single source under the guidelines. The other two sources are definitely not at CORPDEPTH, but at least the first Billboard article is, telling us something about the proposed re-activated subsidiary and about a previous hit on the label. But these are also news reporting, which is a primary source. You are right that Billobaord would be curated and used by academic sources, but that word, curation, is key. Academics would be curating this primary source when producing their histories, analysis and synthesis. The academic sources are then the secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are tertiary, and should be written from the secondary sources, not the primary ones. We don't yet have any secondary sourcing. Under WP:SIRS there is not enough here for a standalone article. But, despite that, the first Billboard article is a good find. Used with care, it could be used to flesh out information on this subsidiary of ABC Records in that article. A secondary source would be better, but the primary source provides information that we could present without synthesis in a suitable small section. Although this !vote is for merge, much of the mergeable content is actually in this AfD and not on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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