< December 03	December 05 >

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal.io[edit]

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

Complete failure of WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find any independent coverage and also $11.6M Series A in 2022 is not significant compared to companies usually considered notable on Wikipedia article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the coverage needed to meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is poor. Notability is not established. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists - but is a niche product in a large market. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Jack City. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CT (TV channel)[edit]

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

Pay TV channel, fails GNG and NCORP. Single source in article is Facebook, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. AllyD (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Jack TV or Jack City. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that Jack TV was renamed to CT, though it looks like a shortlived rebranding effort. Therefore, a redirect would make more sense. -- Tito Pao (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jack City at this article title. There is a dire need for more sourcing, which presumably exists, but these articles are quite redundant to each other. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with predecessor Jack City under the current title. Nothing different with the progeamming except for the name change. SBKSPP (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military of the Bruneian Sultanate (1368–1888)[edit]

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

Like other articles on this subject matter, there is the possibility that the subject discussed is notable. However, the article fails to establish a strong basis for its periodization, both with its content and with sourcing. Sourcing itself is the largest issue, as only a single reference is present; previously, two blog posts supported some additional material redundant to Castilian War. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Asia, and Brunei. Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs are written from a professional and according to Wikipedia:Newspaper and magazine blogs as it can be acceptable sources. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with @Syazwi Irfan: the blog by Rozan Yunos meets the exception criteria for blogs. Much of the content on the site are republications of his column "Golden Legacy" in the now defunct The Brunei Times and he does cite other sources. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor basis of rationale. Sure, the blog might be within the realm of being reliable, but it fails to provide a basis of for supporting the notability of the subject. The blog posts would be better suited to verifying the specifics regarding the historical they describe rather than being used as original research regarding a military that, as far as present sourcing is concerned, has no basis of being described as a single continuous institution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
No pp#. Looking at this on Google books, I failed to see how this could have WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book desc: "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam examines the role of traditional textiles played in modern Brunei Darussalam. Hand-woven textiles are an important part of Brunei traditional culture. This book examines the types of textiles and the roles that they have played in different situations, such as serving as signifiers of social status, wealth, and political prominence. The study focuses on how locally woven textiles have been used to express and construct identity, especially Brunei Malay identity and Brunei national identity."	1. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah (2007). Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam. White Lotus Press. ISBN 978-974-480-094-7.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Page is in section on trade, does not address the subject	2. ^ Metcalf, Peter (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-11098-3.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book is on trade, page 50 indicated in ref is the opening page of the chapter, the "Golden Age of Brunei", does not address the subject	3. ^ de Vienne, Marie-Sybille (2015). Brunei. From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century. NUS Press. p. 50. ISBN 9789971698188.
(MA thesis)	4. ^ Jalil, Ahmad Safwan (2012). Southeast Asian Cannon Making in Negara Brunei Darussalam (MA thesis). Flinders University.
Book overview states, "The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei presents an overview of significant themes, issues, and challenges pertinent to Brunei Darussalam in the twenty-first century" and the article is about 1368–1888, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	5. ^ Gin, Ooi Keat; King, Victor T. (2022-07-29). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-56864-6.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "A 16th Century Spanish Account of Brunei". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "The First Dutch Visit to Brunei in 1600". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	8. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "Brunei in 1888". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

Nothing found in BEFORE. I thought "A history of Brunei", Saunders (2002) might have something, but it is focused on trade, political and social history; I did not search JSTOR.

There may be a notable subject here, especially during the 1485-1530 period, but the article as written needs TNT, there is nothing here properly sourced and worth keeping, that isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Siti citation came from the Kalasag article, i am not sure where the others come from. maybe @Pbritti or @Pangalau can tell you where they got it from. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Syazwi Irfan improperly attempted to close the dicussion. I have reverted their close. // Timothy :: talk 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this should've already closed by 24 November 2023 Syazwi Irfan (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Syazwi Irfan AfD's are routinely relisted if there has not been enough participation or if consensus is not clear which is what happened here. There is no policy regarding how long an AfD can be open, though the norm is no more than three relists. Some can be closed quickly, in a day or so, per WP:SNOW or stay open for weeks. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy's source analysis. I do not agree with the statement that the blog deserves an exemption for GNG. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murphy (hairdresser)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ORG. Primary purpose seems to be to promote the article subject and his company. Reads like a resume. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent coverage by Vogue and Cosmopolitan tip the balance into notable territory for me. Owen× ☎ 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there's also this [1], where it looks like the photo was "borrowed" but it's an interview, so not helpful. I don't see enough coverage to keep the article.Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or draftify per WP:ATD-I. The current page feels extremely promotional, and I agree that image is surely WP:COPYVIO. But to give the article the possibility of meeting GNG with a significant rewrite, consider moving it to draft space instead of deletion, given there is some weight in the Vogue and Cosmopolitan articles? Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING and other arguments above. TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete opinions are Weak. There is also an ATD mentioned with a possible draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. The sourcing is weak for a BLP but he has clearly worked at the top of his profession for many years and gotten recognition for that. The question is whether there are enough sources about his life/career (and not his styling tips) to write an article and I am not really seeing that from the sources in the article or linked above. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, literally repeating what’s there. A couple of us re-directed to that article, but that has been disputed by one editor, thus bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bad fork of content from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, that at best will duplicate material from it and at worst will diverge, either missing material that should be in both or causing material to be missing from the original article that should be in both. No discussion to split the source article has been had and this would not be the most natural or appropriate split if one were deemed appropriate. Could redirect to the appropriate section of the original article but an article title more consistent with other opinion polling articles on Wikipedia would probably make more sense for that! Ralbegen (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If majority want to delete; would suggest moving this polling table to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland Titus Gold (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone with any knowledge of Scottish Politics knows that this topic is, for many purposes, quite independent of the wider UK situation (even although it's the same parliament). It has quite distinct political consequences - and that (and this is the only metric that matters) of particular usefulness to the reader. (I stumbled on this debate googling for Scottish polls for Westminster). The topic in the end is not the parliament, but the opinion polls themselves - and entirely separate polling is regularly done in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am keen not to personalise this discussion, however I have to question the referrers motivation being based more on spite than anything else and would ask that previous talk discussions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and especially the topics of 'Scottish Election Study' poll and 'Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general' election article and form a view as to the referrers motivation. I would also ask that you look at the efforts of 2 of these contributors to arbitrarily close down the article by installing a redirect. In addition by coincidence (i am sure) the article has had its categories referred for review. All of this in the space of the last 24 hours. Reluctantly I have to come to the view that they have not acted in good faith.

There is talk of this being a sudden fork, which is provable nonsense, the current article developed from a long standing article on Polling in Scotland for UK election and has slowly developed and grown to its present form, which aims to provide a neat clean and easy way to view the Scottish context, in addition it compliments 2 other unique Scottish Polling articles on Holryood polling (devolved parliament) and the long standing article on polling about independence

On to the topic created

Politics in Scotland is very different from that in the rest of the UK, be that in Elections for the devolved parliament at Holyrood, on Independence and yes how they view and vote on elections for the UK Parliament, these facts themselves merit it having its own article. If deleted this unique information will buried in the huge UK article. Wikipeadia is a very broad church and there are numerous examples of articles covering the same or very similar topics, on the Topic of UK polling there are already several that I know of, on polling in Scotland for UK election there is at least 3. There is plenty of scope for this diversity and Scotlands unique position deserves to be recognised.

I would argue that the article is better maintained with more consistent than the subsection of the UK article, linking to the key data provided by pollsters, the best information is always to link to the data tables provided by pollsters, and to remove links to less reliable sources such as social media and many newspapers.

Lastly why do the referrers have the view that only one all encompassing article is such a good thing? Leave the article alone and please stop this petty vindictive behaviour, you are not the keepers of all things polling in or out of Scotland and should stop behaving in such an arrogant and high handed manner.

There is sufficient difference in the articles that both should be allowed to continue and flourish. Soosider3 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be very helpful if we could concentrate on the content and policy rather than the motives of editors. This is undoubtedly a content fork, so the question at AfD is whether it is an acceptable content fork or else a WP:BADFORK. Looking at the content, it is almost an exact duplication of the Scotland section of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. This makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As long as the same information is to be kept and maintained side by side this will qualify as a bad fork. It is the old bugbear of unnormalised data. Duplication of effort and inconsistency will creep in, and it is not at all clear how the reader is served. This could be repaired if the consensus here were to make it a WP:SPINOUT. The parent article can just point to this article, and the information there can be deleted. Should it, though? Surely when we are talking about the United Kingdom general election, the reader is better served by having all the information in one place. The article is not oversized. This one looks to me like a redirect but I'll hold off to see if there are good reasons for a spinout first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree wholeheartedly with you on the matter of concentrating on the discussion, but in this instance the behaviour of the instigators of this has at the very least to be questioned as it brings into question the good faith principle.

The article under discussion stands on its own merits, polling in Scotland is separate and unique this alone merits it as a separate article and not one buried deep in another article, readers already have the option of looking at UK level polling. There is mention of merging with another Scotland polling article, the fact that this also exists demonstrates that there is a need and in fact it is desirable to have separate articles, or should we be looking at classing that one as a fork as well.

This article does not bother with a whole range of other items in it because its aim is to provide a simple clean layout that readers knows will deliver clear and concise information on polling in Scotland, the quality of the data it provides is of a higher and more consistent quality than other related articles, in particular the consistency with which it links to the most reliable sources of information on polling ie the published data tables of the polling companies rather than to less reliable sources such as social media, clients articles, newspaper articles, this gives a much greater depth of information removed from subjective interpretation. Have a look at the other articles, many of their links are to less reliable sources. The deletion or merging of this article would be a loss and particularly to the readers. My country deserves to better represented that being the 11th item in the index Soosider3 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soosider3 doesn't like various consensus decisions at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and wants their WP:OWN article. We are discussing a single election. It makes sense for the opinion polling for that election to all be in the same place. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus requires participants to be acting in good faith and in a sensible manner following facts where they are present. Regrettably your logic is somewhat flawed as it would suggest that only one article should exist on polling for the UK election, I'm sure that's not what your proposing. Soosider3 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and Scotland. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest there should be one polling article per election, which is the norm for most opinion polling articles across Wikipedia. There is only one Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election or Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, for example. (Of course, we should and do have separate articles for separate elections, like Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland (edit: or Delete, with the intention to transclude the original section at the UK polling article into the Scottish general election one) This article was originally that article, but seems to have been duplicated at some point. Nonetheless a fork. Not commenting on whether a Scottish "fork" of any GE article should exist considering that article also exists, with a generalised one being more worthy. I wonder if transclusion can be done to ensure the tables on both are the same? Plus the UK article is very long. Dank Jae 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amended position, open to deletion, should this be a pushed for unclear consensus. Dank Jae 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this article, it follows the fairly traditional layout with index box and information about state of parties etc, I tend to feel that much of that gets in the way of the core purpose of Polling Articles, which is why the Polling in Scotland for next UK election was created, to simplify and present a clearer less cluttered look. I have noticed a difficulty with maintaining the links to the data tables and would be happy for you to use the table for your article, not sure how we do that technically but and happy to learn. Soosider3 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland per DankJae. As per my comment above, this is clearly a content fork, and equally clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which is a policy reason to delete. It forks Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election but the content is also entirely in the scope of (and already on the page of) Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. A case for splitting out home nations from the parent article can be made, but a further spin out of the opinion polling from the Scotland article is a much harder case to make. In any event, these are not spin outs as they stand. They are content forks. Some rationalisation still required even with a merger, but the merge will reduce the unnecessary duplication. Soosider3 argues that sourcing in this article is superior (without apparently noticing that this makes the case for rationalisation and data normalisation). I cannot see that the sourcing is very different here, but on the basis that some sourcing would be copiable from this page to the merge target, merge is the correct result over redirect or delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument, however I would point out that the UK polling article is in itself a fork from a previous and still existing article that covers the some matter but with lots of additional material such as state of parties etc in fact it has a very long history going back to all the previous parliaments back to the 1990s. Logically we should by your reasoning all merge into that original article. No I think the article under consideration here stands on its own merits, happy to link the tables into the Next UK in Scotland article but to basically eradicate it is is to deprive readers of options of how they wish to see the data. Soosider3 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you describe are related articles. This one is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK because it contains exactly the same information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would correct you on at least one matter, the content is not exactly identical, both have chosen to treat polling from the Scottish Electoral Study (SCOOP) in a different manner, one follows the advice of the pollster YouGov and does not compare them with other polls, the other article doesn't. I would urge you if you have the time to look at the discussion on that very topic on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scottish_Election_Study_poll

I would also say that Polling in Scotland is very different from the rest of the UK and by that alone deserves to be in its own article. Soosider3 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. I find Sirfurboy's logic persuasive. Aslo, from a policy perspective, there is no current indication that the polling in Scotland is inherently notable separate from the election itself, nor from the UK polling if that is the consensus merge target. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is tangential to the AfD discussion, but covers possible sequelae. There have been a number of suggestions to merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland as opposed to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Either way will still leave us with the same material replicated at both those articles, violating WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I suggest we set up a transclusion of the relevant section at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (the more heavily edited article) to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. Any comments anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. It'd be good to have the material kept up-to-date in a single location that has the most eyes on it (and, selfishly, where I can notice if things have been added so I can update the graph!) Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a transclusion can be set up, that would be fine. Failing that, it would be useful if the table were in one article or the other and then cross linked. But a transclusion will make the information more readily accessible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Soosider3, why did you remove the AfD tag in this edit? Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't or at least not intentionally, been working on changes to article thought I was doing so in my sandbox as had taken copy of site. Soosider3 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was working on it in my User page, certainly did not remove from article, or if I did it was not intentional. I think teh flag was referring to work im doing in user page. Soosider3 (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the edit where you removed the AfD tag above. I am happy to hear this was unintentional. Please be more careful in future. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge target articles as well as an opinion that this page be transcluded which is an editorial action to take if it's decided to Keep or Merge this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially proposed redirection to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, but there has been more support for a merge to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. Personally, I am unbothered either way. The tables here, at the Scotland section of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, and at Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland should all be the same. The suggestions for transclusion were to transclude content at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election to a section in Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland, so they are tangential to this AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also good with either, but the Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland article just 'feels like' a better fit to me. I also agree that they need to be (and remain) identical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input.

Close the Afd

The discussion seems to have spun off at a tangent. Where comments appear to be more to do with Polling Tables between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland which has little if anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland, that discussion should happen somewhere else and not on this topic line.

So if we could get back on topic, the summary from the initial AfD was 2 for deletion, 2 for Keeping, a neutral, a comment and Merge options that were actually proposing different things on different articles so perhaps not reasonable to see it as a unified and clear view that leads to consensus.

The original discussion was unclear on the identified topic and therefore I believe the correct course of action is to close down the AfD, leave the article as it is as there is no clear consensus for change. Please encourage the unrelated discussion to be had somewhere else. Soosider3 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correction

"anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland"

should read "anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_in_Scotland_for_next_United_Kingdom_general_election" Soosider3 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for AfD participants to summarise the consensus. A closing admin will do that. But, for the avoidance of doubt, My merge !vote should be read as defaulting to delete if there is no merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh had not realised it was a single transferrable vote system !! Soosider3 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear bad fork of content from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election which seems aimed at circumventing consensus shown in this discussion with regards to the SCOOP polls. Regarding the forking issue, I basically adhere to the arguments made by Ralbegen, Bondegezou and others. I will also adhere to remarks made on Soosider3's motives for keeping this article, in that it looks like this user is unwilling to accept that there is no support for their position to show SCOOP polls separately from other polls. The same behaviour is being currently exhibited at Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election, where this user is warring against everyone else to take these polls outside the main table. Thus far, there is no reason at all for keeping this article as a duplicate from the main opinion polling article, with the only difference being the separation of SCOOP polls. Impru20^talk 16:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per above JM (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland per DankJae or Delete as an unneeded CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. killer bee  08:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Soom Shale. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article several editors mention a selective Merge as an ATD so I'm closing with that option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keurbosia[edit]

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

Species name is not formally published, and therefore fails the "validly published criterion" of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is a lack of coverage otherwise that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES appears to be a sufficient criterion, but not a necessary one, to keep a species. While not having its name formally published, Keurbosia has been discussed in research articles (outside of the Alan Male reconstruction), with well-referenced information about the specimen. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Redirect and merge to Soom Shale, I've been convinced by the arguments below that there isn't enough notability (by the way, does that automatically count as G7?). Support recreating it when the species will be formally published. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It might be good to include some of the material in the Soom Shale article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Good idea, this could go for a sort-of merge then. Thanks! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this is a nomen nudum would, in my opinion, not necessarily mean that we can't have an article, if there was sufficient coverage; Australopithecus prometheus is a nomen nudum and certainly worthy of an article. (We would probably have to lose the taxobox, at any rate) However, I can't see the coverage here. Of the references given, the first does not even mention the term; the second [2] is a peculiar case of "featured passing mention" - they could have used an eggplant for the same purpose; the third is a pretty illustration, but nothing more. I can't access the fourth, but based on its sparse use in the article I assume that it also merely consists of an illustration. That's not enough, and the automatic notability of a validly described taxon isn't there to offset the lack of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference mentions the specimen otherwise referred to as Keurbosia, although not by that name (page 5, section Enigmatics), describing it in a moderate amount of detail but adding that [t]his fossil awaits a full description. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting & partial merge, as suggested above, seems sensible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPECIESOUTCOMES only applies to validly published names, and Keurbosia lacks SIGCOV as well. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be discussed in Soom Shale, sourced to Gabbott et al. 2017, but as Gabbott doesn't use the name Keurbosia, this title should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant material merged at Soom Shale. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge or if this article should be straight out Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just as Chaotic Enby has already done. Can be split out in the future from Soom Shale if the name is validly published. Fritzmann (message me) 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that "Kerbousia" will be the name used in any future publication. I would hope that a future publication would mention that "Kerbousia" was a word that been previously applied to these fossils, but even if Kerbousia is mentioned in that publication, an editor creating an article under a different name might not check for a Kerbousia redirect and retarget it to the new name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina)[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry. Not enough has changed since then to establish this match-up as a notable rivalry. Speedy was declined. funplussmart (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Missouri, and South Carolina. funplussmart (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I voted to delete back in 2014, and I still think that was the right outcome. The programs have played several more games since 2014, but the new "hook" in trying to establish notability is that "both school campuses are located in cities named Columbia". While this tidbit apparently led the mayors to create a cup, the existence of a cup doesn't necessarily make it notable. My searches turned up passing references to the "cup" in game coverage (e.g., here, here, here, here) but did not find deep coverage of a rivalry. Also, some question whether this is even a rivalry. See here ("Is this a rivalry or not? ... Despite being division foes, the Gamecocks and Tigers have no geographical reason to be bitter rivals, but the powers that be have been trying to make it happen with the 'Mayor's Cup,'"). Finally, the lack of significant history (only two games were played prior to 2012) and the absence of marquee matchups (zero top 10 matchups and only one where both were ranked at all) also weigh against a finding of stand-alone notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This rivalry has had some occasional passing coverage over the years, but there just isn't enough WP:SIGCOV here. User:Let'srun 03:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming my !vote here. Not enough independent coverage for this one to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are either non-independent or routine passing mentions. No in depth coverage of the two teams as rivals largely because no rivalry exists. Two schools being in the same conference and having a traveling trophy does not automatically make a series a notable rivalry. Frank Anchor 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by national media mentioning the Mayor's Cup here here, by the teams here here, talk about the rivalry from 2017 from 2019 from 2019 from 2023. Esb5415 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Esb5415, are those sources that are independent of the schools and their athletic programs? If so, do they give the rivalry or trophy more than a couple sentences mention? Routine or non-independent coverage doesn't count. funplussmart (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Ope, good point. The last four sources from my previous response are independent of the schools and athletic programs. In 2017, the Post and Courier has half an article on the Mayor's cup trophy and what it represents. In 2019, Rock M Nation (a news website with beat writers) talks about how South Carolina is more of a rival than Arkansas. In 2019, a site talks about the rivalry - I'm not too familiar with the site. In 2023, the Missouri Rivals site makes a case for South Carolina to be a permanent rival for Missouri.
  
  Some others: in 2018, The State interviewed the starting quarterback for Missouri where he revers to this as a rivalry (I see someone else say that Wil Muschamp isn't an independent source, which would lead to the conclusion this isn't independent either. I don't understand, they aren't the university - could someone explain how that is/link to consensus or policy?). In 2018, the Fulton Sun (newspaper) talks about how the rivalry is growing. In 2022, the Columbia Daily Tribune ran a piece with the headline "Mizzou has its main SEC rival". In 2020, the Post and Courier ran a piece that opened with "Rivalry wasn’t created by a hastily made trophy. Rivalry is created by great, classic games. In that sense, South Carolina-Missouri has become one. Nothing like the grudge matches the Gamecocks annually hold with Clemson (and to an extent, Georgia), but a rivalry." Esb5415 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Some more sources:
  
  In 2019, Saturday Down South reported Missouri players called the rivalry a "'grown man' rivalry" (may not be independent since it's players). In 2023, the Post and Courier wrote another article on the history of "the SEC’s weirdest rivalry", detailing the 2022, 2018, 2023, and 2005 games. In 2022, SI talks about how the Missouri game could be considered a bellwether for South Carolina's seasons. Esb5415 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Another one, cited in the lead: Columbia Missourian in 2022 Buffaloe wants Mayor's Cup to stay in Missouri Esb5415 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two make no mention of the teams being rivals and only have a passing mention of the trophy N, the next two are non-independent and therefore can not contribute to WP:GNG (and even if that wasn't the case, both are also passing mentions in routine pre-game coverage) N. The Post and Courier source's only mention of a rivalry come from Wil Muschamp, an employee of South Carolina, so non-independent N. The last three are Missouri fan blogs N. Definitely not enough here for a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Power Mizzou (an affiliate of Rivals.com) and Rock M Nation (an affiliate of SB Nation) are not fan blogs, they're legit news sites dedicated to covering Missouri athletics.

SB Nation is a sports blogging network and not remotely close to a legit news site. Maybe "fan blog" wasn't the best of words but it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet. I'll give you the Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals,, but looking into that reference further, it makes the case for south carolina as one potential option of a permanent rivalry if the SEC were to adopt a 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not), but gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should. Still a hard no from me. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals Power Mizzou is Rivals, Rock M Nation is SB Nation. it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet SB Nation is a regular media outlet, I don't see how it wouldn't pass WP:NEWSORG. 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not) Only for 2024 (source), but that isn't relevant - it is a source talking about the rivalry. gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should I don't read the article that way, but I understand why you say that. I read the article as establishing what "normally" makes rivalries, saying Missouri - South Carolina doesn't have those "traditional ingredients", but still making the case as to a rivalry through "competitive games", "position in the division", and "city pride". Esb5415 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you explain how an employee (or athlete) is non-independent? They aren't paid to say what is/isn't a rivalry - they're being interviewed by a journalist, so I'm confused as to how that isn't independent. Esb5415 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are paid by the university making them directly affiliated with the university and therefore can not be independent. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Post and Courier source's only mention of a rivalry come from Wil Muschamp, an employee of South Carolina, so non-independent

This is not true; the trophy is featured in in almost the entire article in editorial voice: The winner also gets the cup, the “Mayor’s Cup” that was created in 2012, the year Missouri joined the SEC. Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin thought it was a neat idea to battle for something, since the two colleges are each located in Columbia.

A reliable independent newspaper source getting some color quotes and background information from the mayor of the city is not the same as "non-independent" coverage. This is clearly a full article independent coverage of the trophy.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not mentioning the rivalry. It's mentioning that a trophy exists (having a traveling trophy does not automatically make a series a notable rivalry). And it's mentioning that one mayor thinks its neat that two cities have the same name. Frank Anchor 17:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is non-independent coverage when the mayor of the city is also the person who purchased the trophy, making him directly involved. Frank Anchor 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: Meets GNG from the significant coverage in the independent, reliable sources below:

The rivalry and trophy are covered in depth in editorial voice in the articles. Any argument that these don't count because they got quotes from the mayor of Columbia and they are therefor not "independent coverage" is ridiculous; they're full newspaper articles written about the rivalry that include quotes from an elected official who contributed to the rivalry by creating the trophy. That's still independent coverage.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, normally a mayor of a city is not directly affiliated with either university. However, the article explains Columbia, SC Stephen Benjamin purchased the trophy to be passed around, making him directly involved in the rivalry and not independent. Even if that wasn't the case, the extent of the his input is “It seemed to be a perfect time to start a new rivalry, and I called the [Columbia, MO] mayor and he told us it was pretty cool, so it’s something fun,” Benjamin said. Mayors of cities don't start rivalries, and the existence of a cup or the idea of a rivalry being cool or fun do not make it such. Frank Anchor 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually mayors of cities do start rivalries, as established by the significant coverage in reliable sources of these two mayors creating a traveling rivalry trophy and awarding it to the winner of the game.

The article's title is Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina), not "... rivalry". Tweak the lead if you insist the game is not a "rivalry", but the traveling trophy between the teams meets GNG. The second article, btw, directly states in editorial voice in the headline that "Mizzou has its main SEC rival" so I would be hard pressed not to call this a rivalry.

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like No consensus right now. As an aside, by its title, it seems like the subject of the article should be the trophy or the games played that resulted in awarding of the trophy. If it is actually about a rivalry, then if the article is Kept, perhaps a rename is in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per PK-WIKI. glman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references provided are either routine passing mentions or heavily based on persons directly involved in the rivalry (university employees or athletes, the mayor who purchased the trophy, etc). Also one editorial piece referring to South Carolina as Missouri's "main SEC rival" doesn't make it so. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this discounting of significant coverage in reliable independent sources based on their diligent reporting.

If the New York Times were to write about a rivalry by getting quotes from the school's athletic director, head coach, star quarterback, cheerleading captain, alumni-club president, and trophy designer all saying that this is their most important and historic rivalry... that only ADDS TO the significance of the rivalry.

The newspaper articles are WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, full stop. This isn't the mayor's personal blog, it's a third party independently-published newspaper story about a rivalry that gets quotes from the people involved. The journalists all write about the rivalry too using editorial voice, not just quotes.

PK-WIKI (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with Cbl62 this seems manufactured for promo purposes. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines. Sources only show routine mill booster coverage. // Timothy :: talk 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree that the sources do not meet GNG, and support Frank Anchor's comment at 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC). Daniel (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The article does need a rewrite, but there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT or re-draftification. The additional sources provided by DCsansei seem to be enough to answer the GNG concerns. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuima Nakazato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was moved to draft as a result of the previous AfD (that I started), still, the references do not show that this article meets WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG most are just trivial mentions of the subject, most are not that reliable or such. Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this was only recently moved from draft-space, do not want to close as soft delete. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep – Whilst a few of the sources are trivial, I believe that several of them are in-depth. Alternatively, I recommend to draftify so the information can be preserved and article can be improved. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I voted keep last time, with about four sources in my last comment. Same applies here I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-drafitify. Sorry, but immediately moving a page back to mainspace [3], and then adding one ref (where the subject isn't even mentioned) is just not good enough.-KH-1 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improving but the subject is clearly notable. I'm a bit tired of editors suggesting moving clearly notable articles to drafts rather than helping to improve them. This article also has coverage from NHK [4] which I quickly found - a full 50 minutes on the national TV network in 2011. That's in addition to coverage of a major award in the Japan Times all the way back in 2007 [5]. It appears there's offline coverage from the Kyoto Costume Institute's very reputable journal. Features in collections at the Mori Art Museum and MoMu Antwerp. There's almost certainly more (I searched for about 5 mins) but it quite obviously is far beyond the minimum threshold of the general notability guideline. If editors feel that the article as it stands is not worth keeping, I would not be opposed to reducing it to a few lines and providing these sources as notability for future expansion (which I may even be interested in) DCsansei (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I have listed above, his latest collection at the Paris Fashion Show has significant coverage from Wired [6], SCMP [7], Dscene [8], among others. Coverage in NorieM (could be viewed as commercial since they do both magazine and sell, but I think relatively reliable in fashion) [9] and a feature in the national newspaper, Asahi Shinbun [10]. DCsansei (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ (narrowly, almost no consensus, but they're largely the same result anyways). Daniel (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity Search Records[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NCORP and it is significantly a prominence building attempt through public relations effort, thus WP:TNT is relevant. 75.5% of authorship can be attributable to blocked sockmaster MusicLover650's sock Earflaps, and WP:SPAsMgretchh Capobw49, Carolinerubin and an IP that links to the same geographical area as the company, 2601:1C2:700:D0E0:7844:583D:4AB7:80AC Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: had AUD meeting coverage in the book Shooting Star: The Definitive Story of Elliott Smith, and a bunch of GNG-qualifying coverage in Portland news. Mach61 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There must to be at least one regional or national coverage per WP:AUD to satisfy NORG, but should be multiple. "Portland news" is local. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how there isn't a suitable merge target for this page, I think the bare minimum in meeting AUD, and very easily meeting GNG should be enough to justify keeping the article. Mach61 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you speaking of that meets independent significant coverage in broadly circulated media? Please link them. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oregonian (Newsbank paywall) Vortex magazine. That's three sources with significant coverage of the label, including the book. Mach61 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Graywalls and the arguments made in support of deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above editors have shown the article likely passes the GNG and it meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important labels (which is no suprise, given that it was once Elliott Smith's label); a NCORP pass isn't required here, so that's plenty. The COI editing has no impact on the notability argument, and if the nice tidy discography table is courtesy of affiliated persons...we should be so lucky as to have such COI editing. Chubbles (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than bands and ensembles, there's nothing in notability guidelines suggesting N:MUSIC is relevant for music related groups. Record labels are a company whose products just happen to be music related. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree with Chubbles here: the article is pretty much fine as-is, there's significant coverage on the subject, and deletion wouldn't benefit our readers in any way. Keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep with the sources explained above, it's not a slam dunk but just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AUD is satisfied with the book and the magazine/newspaper coverage. GNG is met. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because I doubt we will get much more clarity with further relistings. There are editors who want to straight out Keep this article but others who want a Split or Merge. Those two options can be dealt with as editorial decisions with the article and discussions on the article talk page and do not need to occur in the forum of AFD. I encourage you all to pursue shaping this into the article you think is appropriate for the project. But there is enough different opinions and I think initiating a discussion first is the least jarring way for this process to move forward. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoxianzu[edit]

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

Bad WP:POVFORK of Koreans in China.

The topic of this article (ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality) has been the primary topic of the article Koreans in China since 2006 (initial version, October 2023 version). In October, however, User:Strategicasian inexplicably changed the introduction of the latter article to only "non-Chinese nationalities such as South Korean and North Korean people", the complete opposite of the article's previous main focus, and created this new article.

This new article, despite being titled "Chaoxianzu", the Korean ethnicity in China, is almost entirely an original research assay on political issues surrounding the identity of Chaoxianzu and their emigration to South Korea. It cites 25 sources currently – I've checked all accessible ones, and the vast majority of them are fake citations that do not support the preceding text. (It is also immediately obvious, from the way citations are added here, that they are fake.) The only parts that are actually supported, such as the population in South Korea, are also discussed in the main "Koreans in China" article and it makes little sense to duplicate them there.

In the future, the topic of Koreans in China could still benefit from a split between articles on Korean Chinese citizens (Chaoxianzu) and recent South Korean arrivals in China. However it is now being split in the worst possible way: we are getting a extremely low-quality new article on Chaoxianzu, and another article that claims to be about non-Chinese citizens, but still mainly deals with the chaoxianzu. Splitting content about South Koreans from the main article would be a much better solution. Esiymbro (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and China. Esiymbro (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Chaoxianzu in Korea. The modifications made to the Wikipedia articles concerning the Korean community in China stem from a necessity to more accurately represent the diverse experiences and identities of Koreans in this region. It seems like you are ignoring the fact that in China, there are not only Chaoxianzu but also South Koreans and North Koreans. Please do not overlook them. The initial article, "Koreans in China," primarily addressed ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality, known officially as Chaoxianzu (朝鲜族). The suggestion to delete this page seems to conflict with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive information and raises concerns regarding neutrality. As a contributor, I strongly oppose this deletion. CONSTRUCTING CHAOXIANZU IDENTITY Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Location: Home > Chinese Ethnic Groups > Korean Ethnic Groups > History National Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People's Republic of China I want to emphasize that the data and content I have provided are not products of independent research but are derived from verified and academically recognized sources. The assertion that my contributions are based on independent studies is inaccurate. These sources are well-studied and corroborated. If additional data are required, I am more than willing to provide it. Considering the term "Chaoxianzu" is an established English name in Northeast Asian academic and political discourse, the deletion of this article seems unjustified. "Chaoxianzu" is a globally recognized official name and is crucial in establishing and preserving the identity of Korean-Chinese citizens with Chinese nationality.

Over time, it became evident that the experiences of South Korean and North Korean nationals in China were significantly different, necessitating a more distinct focus. This observation led to the reorientation of the "Koreans in China" article to more prominently include these groups.

The creation of the new article titled "Chaoxianzu" was intended to offer a specific platform for discussing the distinct aspects of Korean ethnicity in China, separate from the broader context of all Koreans in China. This distinction allows for a more detailed exploration of the Chaoxianzu, including their political issues and migration patterns to South Korea. The aim was not to undermine the significance of Chaoxianzu but to grant it a unique and separate focus.

In conclusion, the adjustments made to the Wikipedia articles were driven by the desire to provide more defined and detailed coverage of the various Korean communities in China. While challenges concerning the accuracy of content and reliability of sources have been noted, these can be effectively addressed through collaborative editing and strict adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I firmly oppose the deletion of these articles and commit to actively contributing additional data to enhance their quality and comprehensiveness. Strategicasian (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep but I do agree that the article has a lot of significant issues and think the scope of the Koreans in China could be realigned. I've also been concerned with the quality of the article.

My thoughts:

Chaoxianzu are an international and distinct group that I think deserve their own article.
Koreans in China are a broader category that includes Chaoxianzu, albeit not entirely, as Chaoxianzu are international.

Given the second point, I think the scope of Koreans in China could be Chaoxianzu (specifically in China, maybe mention the Chaoxianzu diaspora), as well as the South and North Korean diasporas in China. The article would then WP:SUMMARY-style mention Chaoxianzu (i.e. a few dense paragraphs with key information only, leaving the rest for the full article), with a prominent Template:Main article that makes it clear the rest of the info can be found on the other article.

Given the issues with article quality, I could see an argument for delete unless someone is willing to significantly improve the issues addressed. I'm on the fence about it. With respect @Strategicasian, I think there needs to be a stronger effort to keep closer to Wikipedia guidelines; you edit WP:BOLD-ly, but I think you're too bold. The information in it I think is not necessarily false or unhelpful, but it has systemic issues that may take ages to organically address. It'd be great if you can do the rewrite; you would need to do a careful read through of the Wikipedia style guides (reading Wikipedia:Good Article criteria is an ok place to start; you don't need to promote to GA, but just follow the principles in the article), and ask for feedback from more experienced users. I wish I could provide more focused feedback, but I have a lot on my plate lately. toobigtokale (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on the "Chaoxianzu" article. I appreciate your recognition of the distinctiveness of the Chaoxianzu as an international group and the importance of having a dedicated article for them. Your suggestion to realign the scope of the "Koreans in China" article to include not just the Chaoxianzu but also the South Korean and North Korean diasporas in China is insightful. As you can see from sources like "Study on the Adjustment Process of Chaoxianzu during Cross-Cultural Transition in South Korea," "A Taste of South Korea in Shanghai, China's Koreatown," and "Shanghai Municipal People's Government - Site of the Korean Government in Exile, a Symbol of a Long-Standing Friendship," there is a clear distinction between Koreans in China and Chaoxianzu in Korea. Study on the Adjustment Process of Chaoxianzu during CrossCultural Transition in South Korea A taste of South Korea in Shanghai, China's Koreatown Shanghai Municipal People's Government - Site of the Korean government in exile a symbol of a long-standing friendship - Since the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between China and South Korea three decades ago, six South Korean presidents have visited the Site of the Korean Provisional Government at 306 Madang Road in Huangpu District. The statistics of overseas Koreans include South Koreans who are temporarily staying in China. Therefore, when the President of South Korea visits and stays in China, technically, they would be counted among 'Koreans in China.' However, it's nonsensical to include the South Korean President in the statistics for Chaoxianzu. Therefore, there is a need for clear distinction between the "Chaoxianzu" page and the "Koreans in China" page. This is not an ethnic distinction but an objective differentiation based on nationality.

This approach, which integrates a WP:SUMMARY-style mention of the Chaoxianzu with a clear redirection to the main article, seems like a balanced way to address the complexities of these communities.

I understand your concerns regarding the quality of the article and agree that adherence to Wikipedia guidelines is paramount. Your observation about the systemic issues in the article is well-received. I am willing to undertake the necessary improvements and commit to a thorough review and rewrite of the content in compliance with Wikipedia's style guides. I appreciate your suggestion to consult the Wikipedia:Good Article criteria and other relevant guidelines to ensure the article meets the necessary standards. Moving forward, I will endeavor to strike a more careful balance, ensuring that my contributions are not only bold but also align with Wikipedia's best practices. Strategicasian (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the expectation that the article will be improved and the main article will adequately WP:SUMMARIZE as proposed above. The topic is distinct and article-worthy to me, but I also echo that it needs work. Remsense留 01:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trimmed and properly sourced content, cleaning up WP:OR and duplicate info, into Koreans in China: I think this is a completely unneeded CFORK. Fitting this with SUMMARYSTYLE is a huge stretch. Restore main to pre split. // Timothy :: talk 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @Remsense @TimothyBlue @Toobigtokale

Keep this article please. I oppose bringing together three groups of linguistic, social and political and cultural differences. BBC: The Chaoxianzu are distinctly Chinese. "The Chaoxianzu were born in China and are Chinese with Chinese nationality." One of the most frequently asked questions was, "Are you Chinese or Korean?" (조선족은 엄연한 중국인 "조선족은 중국에서 태어났고 중국 국적을 가진 중국인이다." 8년째 한국에서 생활하고 있는 조선족 파 모씨는 자신이 가장 많이 받는 질문 중 하나가 "중국인이냐? 한국인이냐?"라며 이같이 답했다. )

The Chaoxianzu, residing in China, Korea, and Japan are not merely Koreans; they are legal and official citizens of the People's Republic of China (PRC). This identity sets them apart from the traditional concept of being 'Korean' as they hold no nationality ties with either South Korea or North Korea. The Chaoxianzu's integration into Chinese society extends beyond geographical boundaries, influencing their identity even when they move abroad. For instance, those who migrate to the United States and acquire American citizenship are often classified as Chinese American due to their original Chinese nationality. This distinction is pivotal when considering the Chaoxianzu's sense of belonging and identity. The linguistic divide is particularly notable, as many within the Chaoxianzu community do not speak Korean language (The historical migration and classification of the Chaoxianzu in China offer a complex and layered narrative. The early settlers, traced back to the descendants of ancient Korean captives or abductees around the Ming-Qing transition period, approximately in the 1620s, have a history stretching back around 400 years. This earlier migration contrasts with the more recent influx of Korean immigrants, which occurred from around 1850 up until 1945, primarily under Japanese rule. Most of these immigrants moved to China during the early 20th century. In a significant administrative move during the years 1949-1953, the Government of China officially classified this population as 'Chinese Chaoxianzu' rather than Korean. This classification not only legally defined their status but also culturally and historically distinguished them from the broader Korean diaspora. Such a distinction is essential to understand the unique identity and heritage of the Chaoxianzu in the context of Chinese national history and ethnic diversity.), further distancing them from the over 80 million Koreans who do not speak Chinese. Such a significant cultural and linguistic gap necessitates separate pages and classifications to accurately represent these unique experiences and identities.

In this sense, 1980s Chinese ethnic Korean revolutionary narratives can be said to have expanded ethnic consciousness as broadly as possible. In so doing, they paradoxically reconstructed a more robust sense of national identity for chaoxianzu than had been presented previously. - Sungkyunkwan University, Academy of East Asian Studies

Maintaining a distinct article for the Chaoxianzu is essential to understand these unique cultural and national distinctions within the broader context of the Koreans in China. The Chaoxianzu differ markedly from South Koreans and North Koreans residing in China. Their primary identity is anchored in their Chinese nationality, making their experiences and cultural integration distinct from Korean communities in other regions, such as those in Korea and Japan.

This distinction is highlighted in articles such as 'Chaoxianzu in Korea' and 'Chaoxianzu in Japan.' In China, the Chaoxianzu have formed a community deeply integrated into the fabric of Chinese society, often with a high proficiency in Mandarin, a skill not commonly found among Korean nationals from the Republic of Korea (ROK) living in China. This linguistic proficiency is a key facet of the Chaoxianzu's identity, underscoring the need for a dedicated article to explore these nuanced differences adequately.

Chaoxianzu Village 朝鲜族村委会 Chaoxianzu used to be considered as foreigners or immigrants in Chinese society, but after the founding of the Peoples' Republic of China, they were bestowed new status as one of ethnic groups in China. - Seoul National University

Thank you for considering this perspective. It is crucial to represent the Chaoxianzu's unique position within the diverse tapestry of ethnic communities in China. Strategicasian (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party > Basic Information > Ethnic Minorities in China > Chaoxianzu (朝鲜族))'

The proposal to merge the English Wikipedia page 'Koreans in China' with the 'Chaoxianzu' page, as outlined under the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party's section on ethnic minorities, requires thorough deliberation to ensure accurate representation of distinct ethnic and national identities. It is essential to recognize that while South and North Koreans may share ancestral roots with the Chaoxianzu, but South Korean and North Korean were not included in the Chinese Communist Party's classification of ethnic minorities between 1949 and 1953 because they have their own countries. Korea is not part of China. This period marked a significant distinction in the recognition of these groups.

The contrasting political landscapes of the United States and the Republic of Korea, both staunch upholders of liberal democracy, markedly differ from the historical ties of the Chaoxianzu with the Chinese Communist Party, particularly during certain historical conflicts. This contrast underlines the importance of recognizing Korea as a sovereign nation. Koreans, whether from the South or the North, form a distinct majority in their own country, contrasting with the Chaoxianzu, who are ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality. Consequently, while the category 'Koreans in China' may encompass Chaoxianzu, it does not equate them, as South Korean and North Korean individuals are not Chinese citizens, a status unique to the Chaoxianzu.

"My uncle went to the Joseon War (Korean War) and received a medal." This is a saying that I encounter at least once when I meet Chaoxianzu (조선족) and get along with her to some extent. Chaoxianzu proudly says that Chaoxianzu participated in the Korean War. It is absurd to hear this for the first time. In addition to experiencing a threshing cup at a gunpoint between the two Koreas, even Chaoxianzu, who lives in a third country, participated in the war. Moreover, what is it that you are talking so proudly about your participation in the war? In fact, when you pass the mountains and fields of Yanbian, you can easily encounter revolutionary martyrs and war memorials scattered here and there. This is to commemorate the contributions made by the Chaoxianzu in the anti-Japanese struggle, the civil war with the Kuomintang government, and the Korean War. The number reaches tens of thousands. For Chaoxianzu living in China, a socialist country, the Korean War is a war of justice. It is the so-called 'anti-American aid security people' war against the U.S. imperialists' invasion of North Korea and attack China. Therefore, for Chaoxianzu, participating in the war is nothing to be proud of. South Koreans are just unaware of the background in which they proudly talk about those who participated in the Korean War. The Chaoxianzu Koreans, who did not return to China after liberation and chose China as their home base, greatly contributed to the establishment of a communist regime by helping the Chinese Communist Party. In addition, they followed the decision of the Chinese Communist Party and took the lead in the Korean War. In particular, during the Korean War, Chaoxianzus' participation in the Korean War was just to protect their country against the "invasion of the American imperialists."

The potential integration of the 'Koreans in China' page with the 'Chaoxianzu' page on Wikipedia might inadvertently suggest that Koreans and North Koreans in China are part of the People's Republic of China. Such an interpretation misrepresents the distinct national identities of South and North Koreans, which are separate from the identity of the Chaoxianzu. Without careful consideration of these nuances, merging these pages could lead to neutrality concerns and inaccuracies in depicting these distinct groups. Furthermore, the current linkage of the Chaoxianzu on the Chinese Wikipedia explicitly defines them as ethnic minorities within China, with Chinese nationality. Blending this with the 'Koreans in China' page could inadvertently convey a misleading narrative, implying that South Koreans are a minority group in China.

Therefore, it is essential to maintain a distinct delineation between the Chaoxianzu and other Korean communities in China. This distinction is crucial for an accurate and unbiased representation of their respective identities and histories, taking into account the complex socio-political factors that have shaped their unique experiences. Ensuring this separation upholds the integrity of the historical and cultural narratives of these groups within the broader context of their presence in China. Strategicasian (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue's post doesn't address my or @Strategicasian's concerns about Chaoxianzu being not a neat subcategory of Koreans in China. The repatriates to Korea (both South and North) complicate the picture. If we do do the merge, a separate article for "Chaoxianzu in Korea" may need to be created; I don't see why we should do that when we can just create a single article for Chaoxianzu and have a section for the return diaspora.

@Strategicasian, unless other people jump in, given the current discussion I don't think this article will be deleted or merged. There's enough pushback to make it doubtful. If push comes to shove, I can take an effort to fix up the article to prevent its deletion. toobigtokale (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bassi Kalan[edit]

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

There was no such siege; as the sources and even this article state, it was at most a skirmish. The sources do NOT call it even "battle of Bassi Kalan" and do not contain WP:SIGCOV; the event itself, by any name, fails WP:GNG. The relevant information belongs on Bassi Kalan, following the sources; a redirect from "Siege of Bassi Kalan" to Bassi Kalan is not necessary, as the topic is not known by this name. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft LifeChat[edit]

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

WP:SOAPBOX. No non primary sources in article. A search reveals only storefronts, no news results or significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's this [11], says it's a reprint from [12], so I'd count it as one decent source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one source is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Lekovska[edit]

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

The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to get more than the usual squad list mentions and brief mentions of conceding a goal or making a save Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Ratnahastin (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3/A7‎. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Bouza[edit]

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

Non notable autobiography. Google search found no useful sources. Squeakachu (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Squeakachu (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six phases of a big project[edit]

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

Hey all, I've combed through a few pages of Google results and the only potential references I'm seeing are simply citing this Wikipedia article. Of the two references in the article, one is a blog that mentions the Wikipedia article and the other is a business book I cannot access (for what it's worth, the book's cultural impact appears to have been very small). Fails WP:N . Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Behavioural science, and Social science. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not seem to be a notable concept in its own right. I checked The Wikipedia Library to see if there were any journal articles discussing it and did not find anything. Memes can be notable but I'm not seeing anything that'd indicate that here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need Google Books or any sort of search engine whatsoever for this one. I could turn around from where I an typing this and pull a book from 1981 with this in it from my bookshelf. It is by Paul Dickson. (I have a 1981 reprint of the 1978 original.) It definitely pre-dates Wikipedia. It predates Internet memes. It pre-dates the World Wide Web. Unfortunately, it is a book of humourous "rules", and whilst for some of the "rules" it documents their authorships and provenances, for this one it does not. I've not seen this ever properly documented. It is oft-repeated; but no-one has ever truly documented this piece of engineering folklore. Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The earliest version I can find in that form is from 1972: Effective vs. Efficient Computing, which also appeared in Datamation, June 1972, p75, says it's a modification of remarks attributed originally to Harvey Golub. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's all moot unless some folklorist does the proper research and sorts out the truth. I can just as easily point to Joseph E. Warren^[1] claiming to have invented this by paraphrasing something else in Der Speigel 50/1973.^[2] This does not an article make. Someone needs to have done this work for us. Dickson, at minimum, but a proper folklorist analysis for preference. Dickson didn't. No-one else has either. Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Arscott, R. Lyndon (2014). "Joseph E. Warren 1926–2012". Memorial Tributes. Vol. 18. National Academy of Engineering.
^ Warren, Joseph E. (1984). "Technology Summary". Journal of Petroleum Technology. 36 (7). Society of Petroleum Engineers of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.

Delete: per nom. Nothing here to suggest notability. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Sands[edit]

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

Not notable. Per lack of inclusion @ WP:NSPORT, school records alone are insufficient. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bahamas. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with multiple pieces of significant coverage, see e.g. Des Moines Tribune, Ames Daily Tribune, Argus-Leader and The Courier; safe to assume there's coverage in his native country as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for the nomination and thanks to BeanieFan11 for providing the above sources. I added some of the info from those into the article, there is significant legacy media coverage of Sands -- not just listing of his record but coverage of his background, will try to investigate these sources further. --Habst (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: meets none of the criteria listed in WP:NTRACK. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @OwenX: WP:GNG is what matters, not WP:NTRACK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  On the contrary: the General notability guideline, as the name implies, is a set of general guidelines that apply by default when no subject-specific notability guidelines exist. As luck would have it, we have WP:NSPORT, WP:NATHLETE and WP:NTRACK, all of which apply in this case, so according to WP:SNG they take precedence over the default WP:GNG and WP:N. That is why we have subject-specific notability guidelines in the first place. Owen× ☎ 09:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @OwenX: That's not how it works (FWIW, I would agree with you I'd like to see it work that way, but since WP:NSPORTS2022 the page has made little sense with little impact); from NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline ... The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted – there are more ways to notability than simply passing that set of criteria; Wikipedia: WP:Athlete is not exclusionary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeanieFan11: thank you for bringing WP:NSPORTS2022 to my attention. Due to my limited involvement in sports-related articles, I somehow managed to not come across it. I guess we have to work around a broken NSPORT set of guidelines. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @OwenX, thank you for your vote because it challenges us to think about the article differently. However, I would say that WP:NTRACK (and WP:NATHLETE which is a redirect to the same section) actually does not apply here, because NTRACK excludes Olympians from its criteria (see point 1, "outside of the Olympic Games" and none of the following points mention the Olympics at all). This means that we need to go to WP:SPORTBASIC, which I believe it passes because the newspaper sources are non-database (pt 1), non-fansite (pt 2), non-primary (pt 3), independent (pt 4), and the article includes such a reference (pt 5). --Habst (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Habst: WP:NTRACK item #7 specifically talks about the Olympics. Your assertion is incorrect. But even if we rely solely on WP:SPORTBASIC, things look iffy for Mr. Sands based on existing non-primary coverage. Owen× ☎ 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @OwenX, thank you for your reply. NTRACK#7 does not refer to Olympians because the NTRACK policy as a whole does not apply specifically to Olympians -- it says nothing about them. It says, Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics -- this is referring to the event (i.e. 100 metres) being in the List of athletics events#Olympic and World Championship events, not the athlete w.r.t. Olympic placing. There are no points in WP:NTRACK pertaining to Olympic qualification or placing, both of which Sands has achieved. --Habst (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  My mistake. Thank you! I wish they used language that was less obfuscatory. But then what is our basis for establishing notability - the Des Moines Tribune? Ames Daily Tribune? Any way you slice it, there just isn't the kind of significant coverage you'd expect for anyone--athlete or otherwise--who is notable. Owen× ☎ 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  As far as I know, the Des Moines Tribune was one of the two largest newspaper in the state of Iowa and had a good national reputation. There is also coverage in the Argus-Leader, the largest newspaper in South Dakota, which is noted by Media Bias/Fact Check for having high credibility. Notability does not stand and fall with someone getting coverage in the New York Times. Alvaldi (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  True, we don't need the New York Times. Any of the hundreds of reliable sources in this list would do. But even if we accept the Des Moines Tribune as a reliable source, which I do, the 61 words it devoted in 1974 to the events are enough to verify the facts, if they were to be included in another article, but they do not really meet the "significant coverage" threshold we generally require for a standalone article about an athlete. Owen× ☎ 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage listed above. And honestly, the implication that an article can pass the general notability guideline but fail a supplemental guideline and thus should be deleted is and always has been preposterous. Alvaldi (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gómez (athlete)[edit]

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

No indication of notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cuba. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Francisco Gómez the athlete is a difficult person to look up as there are many people with this name. Understanding this, he has won a bronze medal at the Central American and Caribbean Games and he played a critical role in a story involving Silvio Leonard and Alberto Juantorena at the 1976 Olympics, which has been widely reported as recently as November of this year in Spanish media even though the story happened in the 1970s -- that demonstrates durability of coverage. I added several cites to the article. Thank you for nominating and giving us the chance to improve the article. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bronze medal in the '74 Central American games is enough to meet WP:NTRACK criterion #2. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. Deleted as WP:G11 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GamingWithNayeem[edit]

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

Promotional, borderline G11 bio of streamer fails WP:GNG.

WP:BEFORE: One word mention for being in a tournament [13], various non-RS Sportskeeda coverage [14] [15] A412 (Talk • C) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Bangladesh. A412 (Talk • C) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources mentioned in the article. Totally this is a promotional article.

Showib Ahmmed (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - approaching WP:G11 levels of promotional content. Sounds like it was written by an adoring fan, or the subject itself, as it only uses first party sourcing in writing this atrociously non-neutral worded biography. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non notable, zero ref, fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only reference is Spotskeeda. If subject was notable, other publications would have taken notice. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: probably qualifies as both CSD:A7 and G11. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sourcing found is several hits in Sportskeeda, nothing for extensive sourcing. No coverage otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think Sportskeeda is generally considered reliable. This isn't "borderline G11", it's G11, and I have tagged as appropriate. Kinopiko ^talk 01:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Radionuclide identification device. History is under the redirect for a merger. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAM 935[edit]

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

There are no sources that specifically mention this device that are not primary sources from a quick web search, and most of the information here is already on Radionuclide identification device. Reconrabbit (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reconrabbit (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Radionuclide identification device: no independent notability for this make and model. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ryan (Australian politician)[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for politicians as a local politician with not much significant press coverage outside her local area with a population of 40,000 (the ABC News story cited is probably a regional one that was barely picked up statewide or nationally ... also see this archived version of it). Could easily turn into a coatrack, if it's not already. I live in Busselton, have written extensively about it for Wikipedia, and and hadn't heard of this person (though I don't follow local politics);. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Stubbs, a similar nomination of an article created by the same user. Graham87 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. A local councillor with only local coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Most of the citations that aren't Busselton-Dunsborough Mail only cover her in passing. The ABC spends a bit more time on her but mostly because it is conveying statements from her or quoting her, and then the article is not devoted to her solely. The ABC article is certainly not what I would consider in depth coverage of her. She's not done anything outside of what a councillor would ordinarily do that would make her notable. Searching does find this SMH article, however Ryan is only mentioned in passing. Everything else I see is stuff that's already in the article such as Busselton-Dunsborough Mail articles and The Mandarin article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per nom. no evidence for notability to WP:NPOL.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stubbs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet our notability guideline for politicians as a mayor of a local government area (equivalent to a county in the US) and hasn't received much coverage outside of his local area. In other words, a run-of-the-mill local politician. The first he's attributed with isn't even very significant; he was the first person to become mayor when the Shire of Busselton (established from a merger in 1951) was renamed to the City of Busselton. The Medal of the Order of Australia doesn't assert notability either; all sorts of people get those ... see 2023 Australia Day Honours for a sample. Note that I live in Busselton and have done a lot of work on articles about the local area, but I would never have thought to write an article about this guy. Also see my upcoming nomination at Anne Ryan (Australian politician), which is similar and was written by the same creator. Graham87 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also noting that 3 of the 4 articles are from the same (local) newspaper. Cabrils (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Of the citations in the article 5 of them are local newspapers/websites and the last one is a primary source from the City of Busselton Council. Conducting online searches I found [16], [17] and [18], [19] in which Stubbs is only mentioned in passing and by my assessment a shark attack is more notable than he is. The rest of what I found was local coverage. Council mayors are rarely going to be notable as a consequence of doing council mayor things alone. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Almost all coverage is very local. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete, on multiple grounds of non-includability in an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeled[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. It may yet in the future, if this turns out to be a consistent cultural phenomenon, but right now it doesn't look like much more than a week-long Twitter trend. Notably it was also created by a Non-Extended-Confirmed account on a contentious topic subject to active Arbitration Enforcement procedures.

See Talk:Israeled#Deletion of Page. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, and Israel. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The current state of the article is poor. The sourcing of the entry is inadequate at best, it is a stub, and has multiple tags. I didn't find anything from WP:RS. Additionally, there is no current indication that the topic will have sustained coverage. Moshe1022 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have been mentioned much in media, [20] is all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little evidence that this is a thing. Even if it was, the page would need to be more than a dictionary definition. JMWt (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by the look of it, it is a dictionary definition of an antisemitic slur based on an anti-historical false narrative without so much as a critical viewpoint included. JM (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse Zionism and israel with Judaism, There also exist an article called 'Pallywood' on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean it's Islamophobic. I know the article lacks a lot of citations but rather than deleting the article keeping it would let people to add more context. Balaj Khan (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is not the point of view it presents; rather, it is the fact that the article seems to be a dictionary definition of something which doesn't currently have sustained or reliable coverage.

pluck ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded; I disagree with the notion that the article is antisemitic, I just think it isn't a good article. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this doesn't look like much more than a twitter trend; I couldn't find any reliable or sustained coverage. Pluckyporo (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the above. Coverage is nowhere near significant. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a DICDEF for a topical neologism with zero mainstream coverage. If this is still a thing a year from now or gains coverage, I'd say add it to Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Racist slurs need to be well sourced and established otherwise the racism is on us. WP:SNOW applies. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We need to stop dragging racism into every discussion that is critical of Israeli or Zionist policies. That has absolutely nothing to do with this article, which is a patent neologism with no secondary source usage. At best, this is DICDEF. Cheers, Last1in (talk)

Any verb that assigns a negative association to a nation's name would be a racist slur. Not just this one. As off yet, there is no official rule that all racism is problematic except against Israelis. If we include such slurs in WP, there better be good sources. gidonb (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swift, Alabama[edit]

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

This is a difficult one to deal with on the maps, because it's right in the corner of a topo. I could not find the label until it was entered into GNIS from "U.S. Bureau of Soils. Soil Map, Barbour County, Alabama. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1914", which as we all know is not a good sign. The key to the affair lies on that "Swift Church Road", because Swift Presbyterian Church is still there, and they explain how the chapel was built because there wasn't anything else nearby, built on land donated by Mr. Swift, who owned a logging concern in the area. One presumes the post office got its name in the same manner. Anyway, not a settlement, from what I can see. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the history books confirm that this is where a logging railroad for the George W. Robinson and Charles A. Swift 1890s logging partnership began. Or, I should say, one history book. If I could find more, this would be worth refactoring into the logging operation. But there's not a proper biography of Swift that I can find, nor really more than half a page about the company in a book on logging in Alabama (ISBN 9780966624700), which says that this "was never legally documented in any manner".
"Charles A. Swift had a long career as a leading businessman of Baldwin County and has justly earned a reputation for probity and honor in all business relations and was a fine type of Christian gentleman." says another highly partisan book, in quotation marks because it is apparently quoting someone's diary entry. Well none of it got written into the history books that I can see, and now M. Swift is just a namedrop.
Charles A. Swift ran a post office in Baldwin, but its name was Bon Secour according to the directories. Where did you get the name Swift relating to post offices from?
Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a family entry in the same BCH book that I mentioned in the discussion of Yelling Settlement, Alabama (AfD discussion) by the way. I'm wary of such family-sourced histories. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. The article sources the post office claim to [21] for what it's worth. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smile 2 Jannah[edit]

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

GNG/NARTIST fail. No secondary, in-depth coverage could be found. Fermiboson (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Fermiboson (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete one-sentence stub, basically equivalent to a dictionary definition. And zero significant coverage. Might as well be unsourced: source 1 is literally a Fandom page (Wikitubia), source 2 is an unheard-of podcast episode, and source 3 is a fundraising campaign the subject herself is apparently running. JM (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no mentions of this person. Being listed on page 199 of the book doesn't seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 850,000 Youtube subscribers isn't enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 1975. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Ki Kasam (1975 film)[edit]

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

No sources at all. Film itself not available on YouTube. Possibly lost. Regardless, this fails WP:NFILM and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of info or a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I depDed the article and still would like to suggest a redirect to List of Hindi films of 1975. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not lost, it is listed on Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. The ref in the article is a sparse database record. I was able to find this in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indeth from this tertiary source. BEFORE uncovered some database records, but again nothing with SIGCOV. The IMDB record is sparse [22]. Nothing shows this meets notability. No objection to redirect to List of Hindi films of 1975. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by CT[edit]

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

Fails NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Main article also fails GNG and NCORP, no target for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the AfD for the main article (where I voted in favor of merge). Main target should be Jack TV (which has been around for much longer before this shortlived rebranding) or, in the worst case scenario, the article about the parent company. -- Tito Pao (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Largely non-original programming. Ajf773 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this channel had no original programming and relied exclusively on US and UK imports. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Clearly there is consensus against. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RTGame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe that this article is in a poor state, with no foreseeable room for improvement. Much of the cited articles are gaming writers showcasing one of RTGame's stream that they thought was cool; that's not something we can really use in an article. There is a lack of quality commentary of the streams and videos themselves, or his video-making career in general. The plain lack of good sources can be easily seen by looking through the references: most of the article content is sourced to RTGame's own videos or to his Tweets, due to the lack of independent sources addressing his content as a whole. If we cut out all the tweets and videos, all we can mention is that: a) RTGame is a gaming YouTuber, b) existence of 5ish livestreams he did, and c) his rough encounter with the YouTuber moderation system. To be crystal clear: my concern with this article is not of notability, though a case could be made that this person fails notability guidelines(but GNG is not super useful in complex cases like this). I would not be too concerned if this was a random Siberian town that was abandoned in the 16th century. However, this is a Biography of a Living Person. Compounded with the tendency of YouTubers to get themselves into YouTuber dramas, the weak sourcing makes for a real NPOV issue at our hands, even if RTgame manages to stay drama-free. For better or for the worse, readers trust Wikipedia to be a credible source of information. Content like this belong in WikiTubia, where the reader's expectation is much, much lower. A Wikipedia article is more of a burden to the subject than it is a gift, and I believe this article belongs somewhere else than Wikipedia. I am open to draftication too, since there are some useful materials, if more information arises. Disclosure: I am a subscriber to RTGame on YouTube.

A WP:BEFORE search on EBSCOHost, Gscholar, Google, and GNews, didn't really turn up anything that would improve the article. I found some interesting studies that use RTGame as one of the data points, but nothing substantial. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a little perplexed, as the nominator states that they are not nominating based on notability, but then does not state which policy/guideline they are nominating under, other than WP:BLP (where it is unclear how it applies) and WP:ABOUTME (which is an essay, and would be relevant only if RTGame were here asking for his page to be deleted). I agree that the article at present is overly reliant on primary sources, but that is an eminently fixable issue — just cut out most of that material — not a reason for deletion. The higher-quality sources^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] provide plenty of material about Condren's YouTube career, which is the reason he's notable and what most of the article should be about. Small biographical details like his birthday are fine to source to him under WP:ABOUTSELF and will not be excessive once the fluff is removed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not citing any specific policy, I just think that this is a bad biography with little room for improvement. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Maher, Cian (15 July 2019). "The streamer who built a giant Starbucks island in Minecraft to connect with fans". The Verge. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
^ Walker, Ian (27 January 2021). "Hitman Player Tries To Kill Every NPC In One Map With A Single Rubber Ducky". Kotaku. Retrieved 18 March 2021.
^ Marshall, Cass (27 January 2021). "A Hitman 3 streamer spent hours putting the entire town in a freezer". Polygon. Retrieved 18 March 2021.
^ Diaz, Ana (12 January 2023). "Gaming YouTubers say their videos are being demonetized due to profanity policies". Polygon. Retrieved 4 December 2023.

Weak keep Sources 4 and 5, Kotaku and Polygon are solid, but not terribly in-depth. With the rest of them overall, just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, Ireland, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to meet GNG, and the nominator has not actually given a compelling reason to delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Oaktree b. Most of the sources are crap but the good ones are just enough to pass GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the above. The article is in a bit of a weird state as the nominator pointed out, but the subject also seems to be notable by just a hair, so deleting it entirely does not seem like the ideal way of going about this. NegativeMP1 20:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Skimmed through some the of sources, there are reliable, independent sources that significantly cover him. He, from what I understand so far, passes the general notability guideline. The article does need to be improved though. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Verge, Polygon, and Kotaku are WP:THREE reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources about the subject. Skyshiftertalk 03:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have prepared a source assessment table to demonstrate Condren's notability (see also Wikipedia:Source assessment/RTGame):

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Davest3r08
Kotaku	Pre-2023 Kotaku article, reliable per WP:VG/S.		✔ Yes
Cultured Vultures	User-generated content, accepts paid contributions	Two sentences, passing mention	✘ No
Polygon	Per WP:RSP		✔ Yes
Oceans2vibe	? No prior discussion about this (you are free to open a WP:RSN thread)		? Unknown
Twitter	Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
Twitter	Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
YouTube (dead link)	Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
GamesRadar	Per WP:VG/S		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the table. I agree that RTGame is notable, but not much info is available about him. Notability only provides a presumption that the article should stay. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge article should be added. Skyshiftertalk 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Economic equilibrium as an AtD. While I acknowledge scope creep's comment around the sourcing not meeting the standard for content in a standalone article, I also agree with Owenx here that given the merge will likely be a simple addition of six words in parenthesis as they proposed, the sourcing is adequate for that purpose. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet spot (economics)[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF. common idiom. Unsoured since it was created. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete In other words, "it means in economics what it means everywhere else." Though I suppose one could expand the article with the observation that nobody has ever hit said spot through economic policy ever. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Economic equilibrium: the term is used in economics for more than just what Investopedia mentions. By itself, this is just an unsourced DICDEF. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Investopedia is not a reliable source for folk who are driving-by. It is Non-RS. Its not been for a long time. It would need additional valid secondary sources if it was merged. scope_creep^Talk 05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why I referred to it as an "unsourced DICDEF". The term is widely used in economics academic literature, which means primary sources are plentiful. A parenthesized comment in Economic equilibrium along the lines of, ...(also known as the "sweet spot")... doesn't require more than a single well-cited primary source to support it. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. Daniel (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carth Onasi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I'm not sure why this article was nominated for deletion, but this character seems to be notable within this fictional universe. I would appreciate some clarification on the notability requirements for Fictional characters.--Kerbyki (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification? Most of the sources were listicles/rankings and game reviews that doesn't specifically talk about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 17:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters have no special notability requirements: They must be discussed in-depth by at least 3 independent, reliable sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The words you're looking for are received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nowhere is "in-depth" or "at least 3" policy. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and in-depth are similar terms, and an article is typically considered notable after receiving 3 sources with significant coverage. There are obviously exceptions, of course. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation of policy. Policy uses the words I quoted. Three is indeed multiple, but so is two. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reining this in a bit: Regardless of the editorial standard of two or WP:THREE third party sources being needed, we're currently at zero here, and this !vote cites no policy and points to zero sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge much like with Revan and Kyle Katarn, it feels too weak. I'm not seeing the importance outside of the SW universe, and even within the sources aren't saying much directly. A cursory WP:BEFORE also doesn't inspire much faith that'll change.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Cobbled from dozen+ mentions in passing this sadly fails WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what's there isn't particularly strong, but I do feel as though there is some commentary that is worthwhile in the article that may be worth keeping. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge doesn't pass the WP:SIGCOV standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Harrison[edit]

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

He is successful, but I wasn't convinced there is enough to show he is notable. Mentions in articles, but not enough in-depth. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Radio, Advertising, Management, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to IIT Kharagpur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship Cell, IIT Kharagpur[edit]

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

It exists but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to IIT Kharagpur, but I am not sure it merits much mention in that article. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think though I’ve no strong objection to a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Any user is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 12:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie With Bajrangi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019.

Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to keep but could be a redirect to List of Disney+ Hotstar original programming#Continuations 3, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I am not exactly familiar with the process, but if the article was already nominated and the result was speedy delete, as far as i know it should have been speedy deleted, not renominated. Why not just delete the article? JM (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References are not backed with reliable sources. I think it doesn't meet WP:NFILM. B-Factor (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Talent Exchange and Sharing Organization[edit]

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

Looks to be either completely non-notable or worse, a hoax. None of the five sources even mentions the organisation (despite one being a press release), and this includes e.g. this Reuters source which has nothing even remotely mentioning this organisation. Searching with the original Korean name gives a whopping 9 results, most of them Wikis or their Facebook page. Looking for "World Talent Exchange and Sharing Organization" isn't any better.

I came across this article when looking at what's going on with (the name of) Park Ho-eon/Peter Park, who is listed as a Chairperson of this organisation. Perhaps, if this organisation is really as shady or non-existent as it seems to be, a closer look at everything else related to Park needs to be done, preferably by people who can read Korean and can judge whether the sources and claims are legit or not. But this AfD is only for the "World Talent" etcetera. Fram (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Korea. Fram (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 27 November 2023 (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 12:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom JM (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any comes up with something sensible in Korean. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Universal Health Services. (Similar to a soft-delete, due to low participation this could be considered a soft-redirect.) Daniel (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UBH Denton[edit]

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

No results on news or google search. Source 5 is the only listed source with independent, reliable significant coverage. It would seem the confidential nature of the complaints has made it hard to get news coverage about the facility. Regarding the other sources: 1 and 2 aren't loading for me and don't seem independent from the titles. 3 is a google search. 4 is not a reliable source as it is a blog/forum. 6 does not mention the facility by name in the abstract or citations, and was published in 2006 when the facility only opened in 2005 so it is unlikely to have significant coverage of this particular facility. Since creation the article has consistently had in-body external links and POV editing, albeit low volume. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Texas. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something is wrong with Twinkle and/or the article page, I am getting errors like "[f6b132c2-adce-409d-b038-cd01f9875b42] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" and "Server returned error: HTTP 500." when trying to add ((subst:afd1)) both via Twinkle and manually. If someone else could please add the template on the page for me, thank you. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a database issue on the 4th that has been resolved by now (see phab:T352628 and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError). Another editor has added the template. Liu1126 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Universal Health Services. Could not find any secondary sources about the hospital on Google, and sources currently in article are inadequate to support notability. Redirecting to its owner would be a good WP:ATD, although I don't see the need to merge the content over too. Liu1126 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aadam Hamed[edit]

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

Only one professional fight does not meet boxing notability. Also, notability is not inherited at Wikipedia. Jeanette La gorda Martin (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Yemen, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom, though if he goes the distance, I am sure it can be easily resurrected. Just a quick point, I did look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing but could not see the notability criteria. I am sure they follow the same rules as most other topics, but it might be helpful to wikilink to this? Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, single fight so not notable at the moment, but potential for the future. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBOXING. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HIR (mobile app)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT. I cannot find any independent significant coverage. I did find [23], I can't tell if it is paid promotion, but it is not significant coverage. Since creation the article has been unambiguous promotional material and an orphan. Note the issue template mentions WP:NPRODUCT not NSOFT, but I think NSOFT applies. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Ohio. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does the product still exist? The website seems to be gone. Either way, fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 23:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the source brought up during nomination is promotional (The result was Olah Healthcare, an innovative organization which shares the mission that has become Brian Olah’s trademark). And I could not find another source which meets business notability and SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Kanodia[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are mere routine coverage or directory listings. Google searches do not emit anything significant. Hitro talk 09:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Hitro talk 09:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We Can also Fix the error and add new notable links in the article. Sudhakarmishrain (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Hitro, there are no reliable independent sources that have significant coverage of the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((notable))

hey, I know this Article is small but we can use ((Stub)) performed a search and find some reliable sources eg,

SM7081 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done this article need ((citations needed)) SM7081 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Citation ? Needed Sorufx1 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails ANYBIO and GNG as stated above. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the sources in the article do not satisfy notability guidelines. The links above don't satisfy them either. Tails Wx 18:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Also, the two sources presented by the likely connected SPA accounts above are unreliable as the first falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the second was written by the subject of this page so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note In a completely unsurprising turn of events, the article creator and two of the accounts commenting here (SM7081 and Sorufx1) are all Confirmed to each other.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so shocked... - UtherSRG (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly unsurprised lol --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, no significant coverage and all of the 11 references are promotional and therefore do not say so. Just spamming a bunch of sources does not mean any person is notable enough. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 01:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hygiene Plus! Thanks for the laff. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks significant coverage. For now it fails WP:GNG. B-Factor (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Dcotos (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kashdan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP that I reasonably believe to be the subject, see article talk page. Note that the subject is blocked for sockpuppetry, see User:Jcourt656. Certainly notable per WP:NPROF and possibly WP:NAUTHOR (see previous AfD discussion), so the question is whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps that. Note that part of the reason for the request is a Title IX disciplinary action against the subject, which he sued the university over; the lawsuit generated a fair bit of media coverage. I am neutral on the deletion question at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Washington, D.C.. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really discussing deleting a scholar based on their behavior not scientific contribution??? Is this an encyclopedia or a who-is-who. 85.221.141.168 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an incident related to and with impact on the subject's career, with coverage in highly reliable sources. Past consensus at BLPN has been that incidents like this should be included (briefly and WP:DUEly) in an article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the result of the previous AfD. There's a good case for WP:PROF#C1 and a plausible case for WP:AUTHOR. (The latter case has only gotten better since the previous discussion, since a Kirkus review has appeared for The Art of Insubordination in the interim.) The IP editor who wishes the article deleted has made claims that the subject is notable, e.g., that a particular work is widely used in the field of psychology to measure and study psychological flexibility. They have also mentioned professional awards that could make a case for WP:PROF#C3 as well as national media coverage that (a) could count towards general biographical notability while also (b) undermining the claim that the subject is a low-profile individual in any meaningful sense. Honestly, this looks like an attempt to delete the article because they could not dictate its contents. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as publications clearly pass PROF-C1. This is not a borderline case. There is also high profile coverage, like this WaPo article, so GNG is also probably met. --Mvqr (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ARIA Charts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA Urban Album Chart[edit]

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

Not sure if this article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; the article contains mostly primary sources with no third-party sources to discuss its significance. I suggest merging/redirecting this to the article ARIA Charts. Ippantekina (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Australia. Ippantekina (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the below article for the same rationale:

— Ippantekina (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no coverage of the charts, just sporadic coverage of some individual feats on it. Mach61 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARIA Charts: No independent notability for these charts. The only notability lies with the individuals listed in them. TarnishedPath^talk 09:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water management hierarchy[edit]

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

The concept and theory of these articles together seems to be promoted and discussed only by the original authors (Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi, Zainuddin Abdul Manan); eg, [24] and [25] have these authors too. They seem to publish together. Google, scholar and news searches for all three article titles turn up no independent sources or news. It seems like COI self-promoting research by Sharifah81 (talk · contribs) (read: one of the author names is Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi). Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am nominating the following related pages because they are written by the same user in the same topic of water conservation, all cite the aforementioned two authors, all link to each other, and I could not find independent sources for them:

Delete all three due to lack of independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom JM (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom. Perhaps Water pinch analysis (created by the same author) could also be considered for deletion. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at it, but I think sufficient independent research of that topic exists to establish separate notability - in that article currently, only 3 of the 6 citations have Manan and Alwi listed, and the other 3 are all independent (sources 1, 3, and 6). It could certainly use non-technical descriptions though. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (pharmacoeconomic)[edit]

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

A WP:DICDEF. [26] defines the term in table 1 as "the different viewpoints from which health benefits and costs can be assessed (e.g., patient, provider, payer, society in general)". Could be added to wikt:perspective. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Economics. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I don't think such specific usage in a narrow field would fit in Wiktionary any more than Perspective (graphical) does. A better sourced article here would be nice, but seeing as the page remained largely unchanged since 2007, I wouldn't be too disappointed if it is deleted. Owen× ☎ 23:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article is currently unsourced entirely, and I cannot find a hint of scholarly sources that mention the concept. To be fair, the signal-to-noise is vile on searches for perspective of any kind, but without at least something in the article, draftifying (or keeping) in hope sources will be found is just wishful thinking, imo. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few academic papers in pharmacoeconomics that use the term. For example, this one includes the following:
With any sort of cost analysis, perspective (cost to whom) matters. Perspectives for pharmacoeconomics analyses include the patient, provider, payer, and the broader societal perspective (including all costs) with the payer or societal perspective being the most common in the published literature.
And this paper is focused on the term. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Moss[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No results for google, news or scholar search on the name with "monash university". Only source is a self-written bio. According to an archive of the external link at [27], "Psychlopedia is a wiki site that presents information about psychology" yet I cannot find any mention of such a site elsewhere. The account which created it was accused of COI editing and only has edits to that page, but it seems notability was not established post-cleanup. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JM (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more substance is added to this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Half of our two-sentence article appears to be outdated or wrong. He has not been at Monash for a long time. As of around 2020 he was listed as an associate professor and dean of graduate studies at Charles Darwin University but his research profile there now lists him as "adjunct associate" so it's unclear to me whether he is really still there. In any case those titles do not provide notability in themselves. His Google Scholar profile is [28] and appears to have high citation numbers, but (1) these need to be calibrated for the fact that this is a high citation field, and (2) if we cannot say anything verifiable and sourced about him we cannot have an article even if he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The highly cited Google Scholar papers are also highly coauthored, and middle author (in a field where that matters) on a paper with 10 coauthors doesn't convince me of so much, particularly in the high citation field. Little other sign of notability. "Weak" because of the one highly cited paper on which he is last author, but I don't think this meets WP:NPROF C1 in the high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 06:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse Unit[edit]

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

News and google search for "discourse unit university of manchester" turn up nothing. Cannot find independent sources reporting on the research group. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and United Kingdom. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Colectivo (Venezuela). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Mobilization Networks[edit]

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

Based on one report by Spanish newspaper ABC. Looked for other sources in both Spanish and English; none were found. WMrapids (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Politics, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Colectivo (Venezuela). It's clear that the article is about that the articles is about armed civilian groups, which already has enough sourcing in said article. Spain's ABC is a newspaper of record whose content is notable. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More sources, demonstrating that WP:GNG is met: [29][30][31][32][33][34]. WP:BEFORE applies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a brief mention could be included in the colectivo article, an article or redirect is not appropriate, especially due to the extremely limited notability. WMrapids (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment on recently found sources would be very helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the relist request: the sources cover ABC's reporting, as well as the response of government supporters, demonstrating its impact. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NoonIcarus JM (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern vertigo[edit]

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

The archive external link says: 'Maybe "Panic Encyclopaedia" Arthur and Marilouise Kroker or some of their other works or "Death at the Parasite Cafe" Stephen Pfohl"'; it seems like the mailgroup author is speculating two postmodern books produce vertigo? I cannot verify whether the books cover the term in any meaningful amount. I cannot find any mentions of the term online. The article as it is and in all its versions seems like WP:OR. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like OR, if not an outright hoax. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Lorenzo[edit]

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

The subject, a Dominican Republic women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saran Sangare[edit]

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

The subject made a couple of appearances for the Mali women's national football team. I am unable to find coverage outside of passing mentions (1, 2). Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of sources Svartner (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CAP-e[edit]

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

I found no non primary sources on a google scholar search. Original creation is believed COI - I think the main author of concept is Steve G. Carter. See existing talk page discussion - AfD was suggested in 2009 but seems to of not happened. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable even after having presence on Wikipedia for more than a decade. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am saying it because there are no secondary or tertiary sources to verify the information. In addition, there is only one primary source that supports just one piece of information throughout the article. Hence, it clearly does not really conform to WP:V and WP:RS standards. Besides, there was also not much activeness in editing this article even after problems about the article were brought up in 2020. This makes the article non-notable.ST7733B (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like this AFD has fallen through the cracks. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Relic[edit]

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

I checked thoroughly through the 100's of sources and the only one that stood out was:

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2020/10/new-relic-employees-report-unrest-over-work-culture-ceos-donations.html

The others were about routine acquisition, CEO nomination, raising funds. Such statements are also the bulk of this Wikipedia article, so I do not see it fitting on the encyclopedia. It has not received much, if any, significant retrospective in secondary publications besides its support to anti gay company (see above). But this amounts to just a small gossip in the grand scheme of things. That's why I do not see this topic meet the WP:NCORP guideline, (which is more stringent than WP:GNG).

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill

To add, article was created by @Billhodak, Sr Director of Product Marketing at New Relic. (https://newrelic.com/pt/blog/authors/bill-hodak) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'll start by saying New Relic is a pretty old and well-known monitoring product so my presumption is that it'd be notable.

Sources that don't seem to in the article but I think would count toward WP:NCORP so clearly meets it:

Employment surging in Portland tech, uses New Relic as their model company for that article
Silicon Valley start-ups find second home: Ireland another article (that was widely syndicated) that uses New Relic as their main example company
Red Flags Emerge in Technology Valuations, pretty detailed coverage of issues with their valuation, along with another company.
Inside the $6.5 billion buyout of New Relic
New Relic Sued Over $6.5 Billion Sale to Francisco Partners, TPG
Focus: How two private equity firms negotiated New Relic deal down to $6.5 billion
New Relic part of a directory of interesting tech companies but pretty detailed coverage for the length.
It's also a very common product for books/documentation about setting up websites mention and describe how to use. Examples: [35], [36]
Coverage in books beyond simple setup instructions: [37] "New Relic could be considered the granddaddy of SaaS monitoring tools, chances are that if you are a developer you will have heard of New Relic." And: The Linux DevOps Handbook. Can't see a full preview of its section but the book talks about NR's financial situtation and how covid-19 impacted it.

There's more but I think those plus the set of good sources in the article make this a very strong keep. The article should probably be trimmed a bit but that can happen without deletion. As for who created the article, probably could have been done with a better disclosure but it was successfully submitted through the AFC process back in 2011 so I think that's not very relevant anymore. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above meeting NCORP, so I agree to retract nomination (if allowed). I did not manage to sift well enough through the sources on Google in addition to the current ones, most results seemed promotional or routine. Upon looking again at corp criteria, what you mention above is an instance of A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merge and An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product ([38]). बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom, most are routine business announcements. Source 15 is more about the (negative-ish) company culture that existed, so can help build and article, but the rest are regular business goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The premise that New Relic, of all things, isn't noteworthy is absurd. I'm a corporate consultant, and it's a standard tool on my current project, and because of that a recruiter just sent me ANOTHER requirement using it (which is why I was on the article), and I've seen it on previous ones as well. It's definitely noteworthy. Nominate Crystal Reports for deletion, next. — Kaz (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable.

Gartner APM MQ leader [39] (sorry for linking to their material, but I don't have access otherwise).
Forrester report [40].
Publicly traded company for 9 years.
RS coverage NYT Barron's
Arguably even their private equity acquisition was notable given troubles and ongoing coverage [41] [42] . A412 (Talk • C) 21:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient detailed analyst reports available (some linked to above) which meet the criteria for establishing notability as per GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hospital school. ✗plicit 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home and hospital education[edit]

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

It is a WP:DICDEF. According to [43]: "The acronym [HHE] has been introduces by the project LeHo itself. As far as we know, it didn't exist before." Sources 1-2 are primary, and source 3 is not significant coverage. The term appears to only be used by the LeHo organisation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hospital school: not notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced material with Hospital school per above. // Timothy :: talk 00:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harvinder Singh (IAS officer)[edit]

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

India has a fascination with "IAS" and it's a great personal achievement, but it's still just a civil service job, best I can tell. You pass an exam, you get posted and you get shuffled around. You do not actually set policies. So, WP:NPOL is out the window.

For a civil servant to be notable, I would think they would have to be recognised at the national level for their civil service, with awards comparable to the British knighthood. Or they would have to be known for some major bureaucratic reform. Or if they were at least at the secretarial level in ministries, we could imagine that they're probably notable. The subject of this article is none of those things. There are 800 districts in India and 3500 IAS officers, which makes our subject a sub-district level civil servant who's been shuffled a few times.

So, let's look at the sources for evidence of WP:GNG. The first one is a list of civil servants which he's in because he's a civil servant. The second one says "rank", "marksheet" (no joke), educational qualification and more, and takes you to a photo montage. The third one says that, a son of a truck driver whose hand was damaged in a childhood accident has become an IAS officer. But it also says he's a great archer who's got a bronze for India in Tokyo Paralympics. But wait, we already have an article on the bronze medal winner from Tokyo Paralymics at Harvinder Singh (archer). One of the sources there is this, which says, the Paralympian's legs stopped working properly in childhood because of a botched dengue treatment. It talks about his work and study which do not match this story. The pictures from this don't match the picture at Harvinder Singh (archer). Source #4 again repeats that Singh hurt his hand in childhood and worked very hard despite repeated failures to finally pass the IAS exam. Working hard and landing a cushy job makes for a human interest story; those stories don't count for notability. The last three sources are about him getting transferred from district to district. It is routine filler. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mid-level administrator is not notable for just that position. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His was one of 37 positions shifted, telling me he's not very notable. Appears to be a gov't functionary only. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The rationale behind creating this biographical article stems from the subject's unique and widely recognized journey to India's top competitive exam, culminating in prominent coverage by national and regional newspapers. As the founder of WikiProject Chenab Valley, which encompasses the Chenab Valley region, I am particularly attuned to Doda district, where the subject was recently appointed District Magistrate. This role, overseeing a population of over 450,000 people, further enhances their significance. Additionally, I endorse the notion of considering the article's adherence to WP:THREE, which, while not an official notability guideline, provides a valuable framework for evaluating notable articles.

The subject's distinction from other officers lies in the independent media attention he have garnered from reputable publications like News 18, Times Now, Jansatta and more. This external validation strengthens their claim to notability. I welcome the observations and discussions of fellow editors to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and reach a consensus on this matter. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the same news18 source that in my analysis above I said says Singh won bronze for India in the Tokyo Paralympics? Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this one ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question was rhetorical. Did you read my analysis above? If you did, why was your reaction not to immediately remove it from the article and never talk about it again and why is it instead to mention it again, repeatedly, as one of your three best sources? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News18 talked about the same IAS officer, but I mentioned that there are more reputable and reliable sources, such as Early Times, a regional daily that covered the subject as a notable figure. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's barely a paragraph, he goes to a school and chats with people isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being an IAS is not inherently notable, they need to have significant coverage in multiple independent sources covering their achievements. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every person that has an article dedicated to them needs significant coverage, in which the article is lacking. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 21:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: TheChunky (talk · contribs) has been blocked for evading previous blocks made for socking and spamming. Because of a few edits made by Teahouse hosts, this article is not an obvious case for WP:G5. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oryx Motors[edit]

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

NCORP fail. All French sources are advertisements and I was unable to find any other sources in English or French. I can't read Arabic, but a cursory google translate of the titles appears to show a similar pattern. Fermiboson (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Algeria. Fermiboson (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- The only info i can find is advertisements, & complaints about the company scamming customers & not honoring their warranties. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure they will exist in five years' time and I wouldn't necessarily recommend buying one, but the company certainly exists and there are several passable references from www.algerie360.com, www.albayan.ae, www.autonocion.com, www.autonews.fr, al-ain.com. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all reviews & adverts, they do not count as "Significant coverage in Reliable Sources". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for adverting your product. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to indicate notability other than WP:ADVERTS and WP:PRODUCTREVS. Fails WP:NCORP. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capacete de Combate Balístico[edit]

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

Locally-produced PASGT or PASGT-like helmets do exist in Brazil, but I have doubts this "Capacete de Combate Balístico" even exists. As an IP has already pointed out in the talk page, none of the sources use this term. This source on Brazilian Army helmets explains the PASGT was introduced in 1993 and Inbrafiltro produces a similar version made of aramid fiber. Inbra's 2018 catalog doesn't mention a "Capacete de Combate Balístico", it offers PASGT helmets and those are plainly named PASGT helmets. Google shows zero results for "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in eb.mil.br - official Army sources don't use this term at all. This Army source also simply claims the military uses PASGT helmets. This thesis on helmets even states the PASGT is the only helmet, citing a 2008 Army document. No "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in sight. It's possible this was military or commercial jargon rather than a specific product, or "invented" in Wikipedia through misguided original research or just plainly made up. Serraria (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Products, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:HOAX although most likely "invented" in Wikipedia through misguided original research

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (sorry that I didn't see this discussion sooner). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. assistance defend Taiwan[edit]

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

Should this be moved to draft space? Not nearly ready for prime time in the mainspace. Amigao (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as quickly as possible. The article reads somewhat like an essay, is not appropriately sourced, and requires scrutiny before publishing to main. As a patroller, I'd have draftified this, rather than marking as reviewed. Due to the nature of this topic, it really required close attention for verification of claims and statements made. This needs a speedy draft... — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Look carefully at this - looks like a copy and paste from somewhere else. The title is not good English, but a poor copy of the first sentence. No real sources provided. The little numbers that would normally be links to the source, are nothing but numbers in brackets - they go nowhere. This doesn't look right. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, China, Taiwan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikied article, pinging the prof: @Hanyangprofessor2: Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify: Not enough sources. This could've just been draftified at an individual editor's discretion imo. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 05:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify or move back to user sandbox. Apologies (I am the supervising instructor), this was published before I gave the student permission to move this out of sandbox. It is obviously not finished yet. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's a hodge-podge of stuff that looks AI-generated or cut and pasted from somewhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or TNT bizarre title, mostly unsourced, improperly formatted. Notable topic though. JM (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's in no small part just copy and pastes of other Wikipedia pages, though I've come here from the AI cleanup project, and that appears to be an issue in parts. More importantly, If you look closely, it's actually just pro mainland Chinese propaganda. That's evidenced by both the tenor of the article's reference list, and, the inclusion of disconnected headline-style phrases throughout the article such as "The United States regards Taiwan as a pawn that can be traded and sacrificed." Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - title stutters, (how about U.S. defense of Taiwan ??) and it also needs some serious copyrighting. Atsme 💬 📧 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clunky title, and it basically rehashes the "Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty" article, I don't see the need for this. Language is weird throughout as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Move back to user sandbox. Per Hanyangprofessor2's comment above. This is a student that moved their assignment into mainspace too early by accident. They need somewhere to keep working on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an WP:ATD. I am sure that there are sources for this and even one day be considered its own article if Taiwan were ever invaded. Conyo14 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify considering this is supposedly part of a school project. Regardless of how it's written (which is honestly bad) I'm not fond of the idea of having the student start from scratch all over again. S5A-0043^Talk 14:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or move to user sandbox so page creator can continue working on it, not ready for mainspace. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open-geomorphometry project[edit]

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

Notability disputed since 2016. fgnievinski (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Geography, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klaiber's law[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I have been unable to find copies of the linked sources (which, regardless, don't appear to be widely cited or in reputable outlets), and a quoted Google search for "Klaiber's law" returns only the Wikipedia page and other pages scrapied from it. 2dot718 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 2dot718 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. 2dot718 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. If this were a common term, I'd expect to see far more mentions of it. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Queens stabbing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; WP:RECENT; WP:SUSTAINED. JM (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems rather unremarkable, as such events go. BD2412 T 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: routine crime event in New York City, covered by routine reporting. Nothing indicating it was in anyway more notable than any other crime in the city. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, I think it's too soon to say whether or not this is notable yet. Calicodragon (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too soon to even know if it's notable, then it's too soon to have an article. JM (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine crime. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There is no indication of this crime having sustained notability.

Moshe1022 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom, and, I'd also like to draw upon conventional news style ethical practices – it's too soon. It's feasible affected parties may not know and may find out, via the inclusion of specific ages of those deceased, who the family is. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME, mainly for WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE. And, of course, as JM2023 sums up perfectly, WP:TOOSOON to know notability is too soon for an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as this is tragic, this fails WP:NCRIME at the moment and may also go against WP:NOTNEWS. I do think this article can be recreated later if it does turn out to be notable. At the moment, it's too soon to tell whether this was a domestic violence incident or something else, but the sources seem to describe it as an intra-family dispute, which isn't inherently notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Stabbings of less than 10 are usual in big cities. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What a truly tragic comment on the state of America today! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2023 Paris attack. Both have coverage, but this one has multiple victims. We shouldn't be biased. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate that one for deletion if you want. I don't think "we have this so why shouldn't we have this" is a good argument when we can instead look at policies and guidelines like the 9 people who !voted Delete. JM (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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