< December 05	December 07 >

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammond (physicist)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Not a full professor. According to Web of Science, the h-index is 12 which is not enough for NPROF. The book has not received much notice either. No sources to build an article on, I could not even find him on the university website. The link at [1] is dead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Science, and North Carolina. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The INSPIRE-HEP record gives an h-index of only 10, comparable to Web of Science and too low to stand out from the field. I could not find book reviews other than the one already included, apart from a couple webpages with no editorial practices that I could discern that can't be called WP:RS. So, neither WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR is satisfied. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is also some press about research on invisibility cloaks from 2008, but not enough to convince me of notability that way. Searching is made very difficult by that other more famous Richard Hammond, though, so maybe I missed something. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find nothing to suggest that he is notable, either as physicist or as an author. Athel cb (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting work but WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for inclusion. Failed WP:NACADEMIC. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:48, 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison McMahon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable player JMHamo (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, TOOSOON.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft per Ortizesp. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as it stands. WP:TOOSOON. User:Let'srun 15:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wanderer in Bulgar[edit]

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

Basically unreferenced, i.e., unverifiable from WP:RS - Altenmann >talk 23:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Bulgaria, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable short, article lacking reliable sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hayman Trophy[edit]

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

This article has been added to WP:PROD three times, first on 1 October 2018 by both David Biddulph and Harrias; then by me yesterday. GB fan has advised me that it must go to AFD as there has been a previous PROD. The 2018 PRODs said: "No evidence of WP:Notability" (David) and "Appears to be a regional tournament without significant notability. Definitely not first-class, as claimed" (Harrias). In my PROD, I said: "Local event of no wider importance. Fails WP:GNG". I think all the PROD comments are valid and that this article should go. The tournament could perhaps be mentioned in Bihar Cricket Association. Batagur baska (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Batagur baska (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only stuff worth keeping is probably the first paragraph, which appears at least vaguely sourced. I doubt we need that paragraph as a stand alone article. This would probably be better off redirected to somewhere like Cricket in India I imagine Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Cricket in Bihar, only to find it is a disambiguation page! Batagur baska (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 00:14, 2 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!} 23:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del unverifiable notability. - Altenmann >talk 23:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about this. I found this section in the BCA article and it had no introduction, so I have copied the first two sentences of the article to there. I suppose that might count as a merge and there is nothing else of any use so it's just a question of redirecting or deleting the article. Thank you, everyone. Batagur baska (talk) 08:37, 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yelling Settlement, Alabama[edit]

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

Geolocates to a pair of grand-ish houses, but searching produces no explanation for the peculiar name or why the topos put a label here. Hard to see how this is a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came up with nothing searching the Wikipedia Library, etc. The 1921 topographic map doesn't show a "Yelling Settlement"; it appears starting in the 1940s a a few homes no clustered in any particular way. It's possible this may have been a freedmen's settlement shortly after the Civil War; in that case the community might have partially dissipated in the 50+ years before the first topo was printed. I found an interesting article about the black mayor of a small town nearby whose grandmother had grown up in Yellingville. If this was a freedman's settlement, it would be nice to have a good article about it but we don't have sources so far. Mangoe, thanks for flagging this one. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Findagrave.com is not a reliable source but this entry for Viney Morse Yelling gives some interesting information. Viney married "Aaron Yelling of Yellingville, located in Belforest, Baldwin County, Alabama." --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a county project a few years ago to get the names of all of the early settlers in Baldwin County, Alabama, and Louis Yelling's name is on the list against Yellingville. Unfortunately, said Louis Yelling also said "I am a resident of Daphne, Baldwin County, Alabama". I've checked several Baldwin histories, and there's nothing. This looks like an early Baldwin County settlement, many of which were not formally documented anyway, that has been lost to history.
Our introduction to Malbis, Alabama does a truly terrible job of explaining one of the settlements around Daphne that was not lost to history.
Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 29 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!} 23:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del nn per WP:NGEO: no refs cited besides database. - Altenmann >talk 00:00, 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 12:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calgarypuck[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Cannot find independent third party reliable sources to indicate that this web site passes WP:GNG, I found only passing mentions in a couple news articles, and mentions in blogs which do not establish notability. Flibirigit (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, Websites, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del no verifiable notability. - Altenmann >talk 00:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in independent sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:19, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Class (2010 TV series)[edit]

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

Has lain unsourced for years AntiDionysius (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 30 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!} 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest notability. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 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 10:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kandis Westmore[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; 15 of the 34 citations on the page relate to two opinions she authored and verge on WP:CITEKILL Snickers2686 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but not much more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 01:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:16, 29 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!} 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The article on Kandis Westmore, while providing information about a United States magistrate judge, does not establish notability beyond the position held. According to WP:USCJN, magistrate judges are not inherently notable, and the subject does not meet the specific notability criteria outlined in WP:JUDGE or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The citations provided are primarily related to opinions authored by the subject, which may not be sufficient for establishing notability without significant independent coverage. The use of numerous citations for a couple of opinions also raises concerns about WP:CITEKILL where an excessive number of citations may overwhelm the content and suggest an attempt to assert notability through quantity rather than quality of sources. As such, the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and would be more appropriately covered within the context of a broader article, unless further reliable and independent sources can be found to establish notability.

PD Slessor (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wirrn Isle[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Ping me if WP:THREE WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Davros.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 29 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!} 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reliability of Sci-fi bulletin seems questionable. Insufficient number of refs to establish notability. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Parts (audio drama)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article due to a lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. This is one of the more noted within the doctor who fandom and hence I have AFDed this instead of proposing it for deletion. I think there is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 29 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!} 23:09, 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 keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Davros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Torpedoi (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking up sources to see if we can get notability on this one, but British audio drama is a bit outside of my usual wheelhouse. I'll post the sources here for everyone's perusal. I'll start with reviews of the program: Unreality SF looks either RS or acceptable SPS given the author's credentials. Time Scales. Doc Oho Reviews looks like a blog. Winter Is Coming. Sci-Fi Online looks commercial. Sci-Fi Bulletin looks like it has potential. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (very weak): meets GNG [2], [3]. // Timothy :: talk 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 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!} 23:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the additional sources provided during the discussion, "The Curse of Davros" appears to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The sources cited, such as reviews from Unreality SF and Sci-Fi Online, suggest that there is significant coverage in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. the presence of multiple sources that provide independent reviews and coverage of the audio drama indicates that the topic has received enough attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for creative works.

PD Slessor (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:46, 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 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 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Paris[edit]

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

All 10 sources merely confirm previous ambassadors. There is no coverage of the actual embassy. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and France. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 29 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!} 23:07, 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. Lack of participation would normally be a relist or soft delete, but the article in its current form is a blatant G11. There is some less promotional content in the article history, but even that clearly fails notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orato[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement for the company, cites no sources other than own website, fails WP:SIRS DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Companies. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophocles Xinis[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The souring and content is just a few routing resume type facts and coverage of him being prosecuted fo a fraud type charge. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All our sourcing is about him as a criminal (final section of article), not as an education entrepreneur (lead and first section, consisting entirely of unsourced claims). As such the only notability guideline that appears relevant is WP:CRIMINAL, which demands "sustained coverage ... beyond contemporaneous news coverage". We do not appear to have that kind of coverage, so I think he does not pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and nom. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YPOPs![edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, complete lack of significant coverage. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't appear this has been updated in over 10 years, but what amused me the most is that the website has since been taken over by an entirely unrelated blog, yet is still linked in the article. Clearly, this is not notable software. Searching either returns download links or mirrors of the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Webz.io[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. References are taken from company website as well as PR, interviews. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A related AfD (same owner) is held on the following company: Omgili. gidonb (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usually, startups and companies just out of the startup phase are not notable. Exceptions certainly exist as startups can be the buzz of much media attention. That said, Webz.io is no exception to the nonnotable norm. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylar[edit]

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

The page is just a plot with little to establish notability, everything in the article is interviwews and episode reviews Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 6 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 Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep If you add the qualifier "heroes" to the Google Scholar search, the first six entries appear to be independent, non-trivial scholarly sources--books and journal articles. If you can examine and rebut ~~all~~ at least five of them, I will consider changing my !vote. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Largely unsourced fancruft. Fails GNG. If in the future sources for an article are written, a new article can be written. This has so much WP:OR/SYNTH fancruft any new article will need WP:TNT to clear the way. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue No WP:ATD-R even...? Why delete, not redirect? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I concur this is to weak right now, but the odds are sources may exist, he was a major antagonist (and later IIRC protagonist?) of a long-running and popular series that isn't too forgotten yet. I am swamped right now with other stuff, but I exped Siroxo or Daranios can find some stuff. A quick GScholar search suggests there is hope. Ping me if sources are found (or not...) and I'll be happy to cast a proper vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I do see SIGCOV for this character in academic and educational books:
1. Don Adams, Chapter 14 of Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture, Wiley. (also published by Wiley in Heroes and Philosophy) This chapter has a subsection titled "The Virtue that Sylar Lacks" and discusses the subject in depth. Examples:
  ... Since Sylar is unable to control this hunger – it rules him – Sylar is intemperate.
  Plato argued that intemperance makes one immoral. Sylar, again, is a perfect example.... Sylar does not merely kill for killing’s sake. He simply hungers for powers.... So, because Sylar’s hunger controls him, he ends up murdering everyone he can find who has powers. It is his intemperance – his inability to control that hunger – that makes him the villain he is.
2. In Investigating Heroes, McFarland several essays seem to have SIGCOV. Here's an example from "'You're Broken. I Can Fix You': Negotiating Concepts of U.S. Ideology" by Torsten Caeners
  Sylar's trademark phrase, "You're broken. I can fix you," epitomizes central elements of the character's origins and development. To begin with, of course, it is evocative of Sylar's character, reminding the audience of his humble (and harmless) origin as a watchmaker....
  on a linguistic level, [the phrase] humanizes the watchmaker's promise of repairing a broken watch ... while, on the psychological level, it de-humanizes the victims in Sylar's mind....
  Sylar takes his name and thus his identity from an origin that implies both a certain level of activity and creativity — in that the brand really does produce watches — and constitutes a brand thus signifying fame and achievement.
3. Lynette Porter's Tarnished Heroes, Charming Villains and Modern Monsters, McFarland
  Along the way, Sylar tries to become a less gray villain or even a hero with a decidedly shady past, but a confrontation always leads to his becoming a darker villain than ever. [Examples precede and follow]
  and
  ... reminds viewers that Evil can take many forms, from logical to threatening to seductive, in order to sway heroes from the path of goodness. Sylar more closely resembles a Judeo-Christian Satan figure through these scenes. He is persistent, intelligent, manipulative, falsely benign, seductive, alluring. He uses whatever tactic will work in order to make heroes doubt themselves or their cause. Although Sylar doesn't convince Claire to join forces with him, he does succeed in making her doubt herself and to be wary of anyone in whom she can confide. He "wins" in this encounter, although no one dies.
4. Daniel Whiting's "Is Abrams’s Star Trek a Star Trek Film?" in The Philosophy of J.J. Abrams, University Press of Kentucky:
  Quinto, was previously best known for playing ... the serial killer Sylar in Heroes. This casting decision is extremely suggestive.... Another ... way in which Quinto’s previous role as Sylar has resonance with respect to his role in Star Trek is that, like Kirk and ... Spock, Sylar’s lineage is a complex matter.
  [extended comparison ensuses]
  ... The important point for present purposes is that the near-bewildering array of issues concerning Sylar’s lineage and the resultant uncertainty about his relationship to his apparent predecessors surely informed, or at least casts an interesting light on, the decision to cast Quinto as Spock.
5. Saving The World by Lynnette Porter, David Lavery and Hillary Robson, ECW Press, eg:
  Sylar is faced with a similar inner conflict. He begins the series as a rather unremarkable fellow who repairs watches, a debut that matches Jon Osterman’s in Watchmen. Both Sylar and Osterman likewise gain tremendous power. Audiences do not see Sylar rise to the godlike dimensions of Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, but his power is potentially limitless. He confronts a power greater than his own, that of fate.
  and
  [Sylar, né Gabriel Gray] likes to “blow his own horn” about his achievements in order to gain his mother’s approval and lives in the gray world of mediocrity and moral ambiguity until he develops the ability to gain others’ superpowers.
  ...
  Heroes also presents some redeeming qualities in each or tries to rationalize their behavior. After all, if Gabriel hadn’t come from a dysfunctional family and desperately needed approval to feel special, he might not have turned into an (apparently) brain-eating murderer.
—siro χ o 22:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Nice. Consider my vote now keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per my reply above. —siro χ o 22:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neznám pravidla anglické Wikipedie, znám jenom českou Wikipedii. Ale Elle Bishopová byla jen vedlejší postava ve druhé řadě a v první polovině třetí řady, a přitom článek Elle Bishop se stal dobrým článkem. Sylar byl jednou z nejdůležitějších postav celého seriálu, která herce Zacharyho Quinta proslavila po celém světě a která byla zařazena mezi nejlepší fiktivní vrahy, jak je uvedeno v článku, a která zřejmě inspirovala další fiktivní postavy (kněz a vrah Guillermo Ortiz ze seriálu Doteky osudu), a článek Sylar má být smazán? Směšné… Omlouvám se za češtinu, neumím anglicky. (Překlad z češtiny do angličtiny od Překladače Google / Translation from Czech to English by Google Translate: I don't know the rules of the English Wikipedia, I only know the Czech Wikipedia. But Elle Bishop was only a minor character in series two and the first half of series three, and yet the Elle Bishop article became a good article. Sylar was one of the most important characters of the entire series, which made the actor Zachary Quinto famous all over the world, and who was ranked among the best fictional killers, as mentioned in the article, and who apparently inspired other fictional characters (priest and murderer Guillermo Ortiz from the series Touches of Fate) , and the Sylar article to be deleted? Ridiculous… Sorry for the Czech language, I don't know English.) --Marek Genius (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources suggested by Jclemens and laid out by Siroxo are enough to establish notability in my view. The nomination only refers to the status of the article as it is now, which is not the decisive factor as explained in WP:ARTN. The WP:BEFORE search required for a deletion nomination should have included a thorough look at accessible sources. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk Radio[edit]

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

Defunct company which previously owned two radio stations in Bristol, UK. Does not appear to pass WP:NCORP and there is nothing here that cannot be included in the articles about the stations themselves. Coverage is very routine and deals with the basic facts of the company existing, buying and then selling on its two radio stations. Flip Format (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 18:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cronin (Wisconsin politician)[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG; failed congressional candidacy bolted onto a career as a small-market TV meteorologist does not qualify. I can't even verify where he worked in Springfield, Missouri, because his name turns up no hits in Springfield newspapers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Television, and Wisconsin. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they're notable for some other reason besides an unelected candidacy — but television meteorologists at the local station level aren't "inherently" notable either, and this isn't showing nearly enough coverage to make him more notable than the norm for local television personalities. And no, he doesn't inherit notability just because his brother's famous, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe this person meets GNG. Certainly would not qualify under NPOL so the title should be changed should it be determined his meteorology career meets GNG. Notability is not inherited from his brother as a musician.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. User:Let'srun 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Penn (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

WP:ADVERTISEMENT. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to have sold his real estate [4], but that's not enough for notability. Rest here is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Promo article from a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 19:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 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 Move to draft‎. RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Quest 4[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 18:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could also argue that it's also WP:RUMOUR Nonameafghan (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft or delete, I noted that this may be too soon and was struggling to find a way to re-word the article, but the sources are heavily speculative and until we have something more concrete, it's best not to have this in mainspace. ASUKITE 19:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this feels like cybersquatting. An article by this name will certainly exist at some point, but crediting the creator of this page will only encourage more wikisquatters to create likely future article titles with zero encyclopedic content. The author's editing history also suggests they might not be here for the right reasons. Owen× ☎ 01:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCRYSTAL. All sources, not to mention the content of the article, are speculations. Even if it's the most likely scenario, it's not confirmed that the device will be called the "Quest 4" (even be released at all for all we know). The Quest 3 just came out, let's hold our horses and give it a year or so before making an article about it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft would be the best thing to do for this article for now. Catfurball (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:07, 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 redirect‎ to Westmeath Senior Football Championship. RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Westmeath Senior Football Championship[edit]

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

Unreferenced and seemingly incomplete for over a decade. There isn't any info on the results of the matches. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:NEVENT, and isn't a top level competition. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is the closest thing to a relevant source I found. Don’t know if that changes anything, but I do agree that the article fails WP:NOTABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.94.171 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Westmeath Senior Football Championship. As an WP:ATD. Or, failing that, delete. (Nothing to indicate that subject meets WP:NSEASON or WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Westmeath Senior Football Championship as a valid WP:ATD. Don't need separate season articles for this tournament, as the seasons don't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Westmeath Senior Football Championship per the other editors arguments. HappyWith (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Westmeath Senior Football Championship. Kkb091 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Westmeath Senior Football Championship.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College–Virginia Tech football rivalry[edit]

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

This subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent, secondary sources. A BEFORE check only came up with [[5]]. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't come close to meeting the high bar of NRIVALRY, and a blog post or two by bored sportswriters doesn't cut it either. Ravenswing 16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these: [6] and [7]. Neither I would consider to be significant coverage, but the SI article might be indicative of some more WP:SIGCOV articles out there. Conyo14 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the rivalry from the web:
BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should provide hesitancy to the WP:LOCAL of Boston sources. The Washington Post is quite the WP:SIGCOV Conyo14 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article is WP:SIGCOV. Not as convinced by the other sources (WP:LOCAL applies for the Boston based papers), although I can't access The Athletic article so that may also meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Able to access it now, and while it covers a few individual games in depth it appears that the 'series' never lasted long enough to qualify for NRIVALRY, as seen by the tone used. Let'srun (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. The only article above that might meet GNG is the WP article, and even that is a stretch because it is largely dependent on quotes from coaches of the teams, making the sources non-independent. The rest arre WP:LOCAL and generally passing/routine mentions. Frank Anchor 14:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the WaPo piece is about as clear a piece of SIGCOV as one could imagine -- it focuses on the series as a rivalry. The fact that the article includes quotes from players or coaches doesn't reduce its independence. To the contrary, such quotes are the earmark of good journalism, i.e., good journalists go to the relevant sources for their take on a topic. Holy smokes, if we're to the point of rejecting an in-depth WaPo piece as non-independent, we may as well just shut this place down. Second, there is nothing in our policy or guidelines that says that local media outlets don't count toward GNG (except in the limited and inapposite case of WP:NCORP). While hyper-local outlets IMO should be given lesser weight, we're not dealing with hyper-local outlets here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that local sources should only provide hesitancy due to the factor of bias playing into some level of independence. Conyo14 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cbl62. Also, this additional source isn't really independent but says "If anyone is our rival in football, it’s definitely VT. We’ve played them at least once a year since 1993, with one exception of 2004." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to pass WP:GNG, per the sources I found and arguments by Cbl62 and WikiOriginal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the spirited defense and additional sources carry this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as established by the sources found by BeanieFan11. Please note that WP:LOCAL is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and as Cbl62 notes, there is nothing in our policy or guidelines that discounts local media outlets. Alvaldi (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Nom Withdraws (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akabira Station[edit]

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

Non-notable Train Station, no references since 2011. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Japan. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Japanese article appears to have several sources and additional content that can be used to expand the English article. Garuda3 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it hasn't been improved for over a decade is an indicator that it wont be improved in the near future. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be improved, it would meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved includes adding the references to the article, as long as the references are not in the article it does not pass GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Japanese wiki article has a dozen sources and gives a rundown of the history of the station. Refs 1 and 5 in particular, then there are additional listings in the "further readings section" at the bottom. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't count unless included in the English Article, if you want to you can add them if no one adds them there is no point in having the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD isn't clean up, the fact that there are sources that aren't here isn't a valid reason to delete the article Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the high probability of the article staying in it;s current state is. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's clear that a WP:BEFORE search has not been conducted. AfD is not a venue for cleanup of substandard articles, it's a last resort. Sounder Bruce 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When an article has been tagged for clean-up for over a decade the odds of it getting improved are next to none, In the Articles Current state it does not pass GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes GNG through sources in the Japanese article and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article blatantly passes GNG per above voters, the references do not need to be in the article for the topic to meet GNG as per WP:NEXIST. Jumpytoo Talk 03:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14th High School in Wrocław[edit]

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

Non-Notable school, only has one source which happens to be just a database. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Poland. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pl wiki is very inclusive for high schools (read and weep: pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność/szkoły it's enough to have 20+ years of history and 1+ notable graduate!) so this may survive there, but for us, GNG needs to be shown and this artivce fails to do this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd High School in Wrocław[edit]

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

Non-Notable school, only has one source which happens to be just a database, cited for needed refs since 2015, List of alumni does not follow the verifiability policy. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Poland. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pl wiki is very inclusive for high schools (read and weep: pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność/szkoły it's enough to have 20+ years of history and 1+ notable graduate!) so this may survive there, but for us, GNG needs to be shown and this artivce fails to do this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. Due to all the results on newspapers.com I am withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benbrook Middle-High School[edit]

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

Only 2 refs: first is a dead link, second has questionable reliability & is not Significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Texas. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Used Newspapers.com to find published articles talking about the proposal to build a new middle school in Benbrook, with them talking about advocacy in the city for a new school: in one an ex-city council member stated how, until then, there were parents moving to other cities as they felt the existing schools were not meeting their needs. Then I found a 2013 article that talked in detail about how residents wanted a centrally-located high school too. These sources should be sufficient for WP:GNG. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the links to the individual sources? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 (about the 2007 bond and reception by residents of Benbrook), Source 2 (advocacy by residents of Benbrook), and source 3 (about adding the high school), all for notability. This FWISD-written ad connects sources 1 and 2 specifically to the school itself as it demonstrates the 2007 bond had Benbrook Middle (now Benbrook Middle-High) built WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the significant coverage found at newspapers.com. You should be able to obtain free access to this at the Wikipedia library ([8]) Jacona (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What search did you do to provide the sources: Benbrook Middle-High School, Benbrook Middle School, or Benbrook High School??? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PaulGamerBoy360, That's an excellent question, because I started with BHS. I found a lot of interesting information, especially because some of it pre-dated the current school by many years as there were proposals to rename Western Hills High School to Benbrook, and there may even have been an older edition of Benbrook High School, I'm not sure. Also please note, adding quotes around the entire search string helps, but newspapers.com is kind of weird about how they handle that. Getting back to the original question, I believe that many of the post 2007 articles about Benbrook High School address this school, and I never searched for BMS. There's a lot of articles, and I certainly haven't spent the time to read them all or to make clippings. It just appears unnecessary to do that to establish N for my purposes, there's a lot out there. — Jacona (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found that it started as Benbrook Middle School, so I searched with that in the years 2004-2011 or so (a range), and I found articles about the development. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have never used newspapers.com because i never knew I had access to it. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:43, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Health Workforce and The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

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

Basically WP:ESSAY. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, and United States of America. PepperBeast (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, it's not the worst essay I've ever seen, and the sources seem reliable, but in the absence of evidence that the "Rural Health Workforce and the PPACA" is a coherent subject of study in secondary sources, it's a misuse of Wikipedia.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an essay, not a Wikipedia article. JM (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Didn't look like an article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:23, 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. To the IP editor with a question, I would recommend starting discussions on the talk pages for those articles. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - as the article has more than 5000 revisions, it will have to be deleted by a steward - I have submitted a request here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adidas sponsorships[edit]

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puma sponsorships and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asics sponsorships, primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Sports, Lists, and Germany. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason I made this article was because back in 2007, the list was included in the Adidas-article itself (see here). For reasons of WP:UNDUE, I created a separate article for the sponsorships itself. When the "Sponsorships"-section of the main article gets bloated again (which happens from time tot time), we can cut it down easily, and referring to the sponsorship-article as the appropriate aplace to mention the sponsorships. When we lose that, my fear is that the Adidas-article will be a bloated mess again.

On top of that, WP:NOTADVERTISING says that [i]nformation about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. I cannot think of something more objective and unbiased than a list.

That said, I agree that the sourcing could be improved. But that's hardly a reason to delete an article with 32 references.

And for the record, please also see the previous AfD.

Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD from 2008, when standards were very different to now, is not sufficient reason to keep. This is just a directory list, and multiple other articles like this have been deleted recently. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this necessary? SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is another clear cut case of WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as other two AfD outcomes mentioned in the article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, however I disagree with the assessment on advertising, yes, Adidas is a company, however listing their sponsorships is not a form of advertising. As for GiantSnowman's comment above, notability is not the issue here either. You can easily source these kind of lists and there are some citations on the article. But that doesn't negative the NOTDIRECTORY policy. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is the issue. Giant Snowman 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this AfD is still open, can I get a definitive answer on whether these sponsorship lists—often with little flags—are ever okay for company/brand articles, e.g. Air Jordan#Sponsorships and Fila#Sponsorships. If the answer is "no", should it just be a smattering of current notable sponsorships in prose? Or maybe not current, but most notable of all time? Because it looks to me like a large part of Adidas' history comes from who it sponsored.

70.163.208.142 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Study of the Native Land[edit]

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

Almost certainly fails GNG. Also barely readable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, and Russia. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreadable without a doubt. Will support draftification if anyone is willing to improve it. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a bad manual translation from Russian and isn't notable. JM (talk) 21:54, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden fantasy[edit]

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

Largely an editorial thinkpiece making extensive use of WP:SYNTH and showing signs of WP:COAT. Sources appear scholarly, but are difficult to verify and don't seem to be primarily about the topic subject. BEFORE found one and only one article (paywalled) using the "golden fantasy" term in its title. This editor is not convinced, but would welcome a WP:HEY. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the term has been used in the psychoanalysis field, and the academic sources can be verified - here is the 1977 paper mentioned, and here is a 1986 one. But unless we can find any non-primary references to establish notability, I'm afraid it doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 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 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 12:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hill Lodge[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is a merge/redirect to Yongsan Garrison article, but I think that may unbalance the garrison article unduly. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, South Korea, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 22 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!} 06:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 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 03:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Public School, Gajsinghpur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL/the GNG. My WP:BEFORE search uncovered no evidence that this school has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and no alternatives to deletion are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Rajasthan. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find any notable coverage by independent sources. Cortador (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sigcov for inclusion. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Random-access memory. If an editor ever comes across paper sources that could be used to establish notability and expand this article, this decision can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RAM card[edit]

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

Unsourced contested PROD. Creator has placed a comment on the talk page explaining why they contested. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Ram card" is also sometimes used for memory expansion cards for Amiga computers. Eg. Amiga Schopper, October 1994, issue 42, pp. 10-14 lists in its comparison 3 such cards. Interesting enough, the term "Ram card" is not mentioned in the article (only in adverts in the same issue), but a short preview of the previous issues (eg. July 1995, issue 51, p. 82) shows the caption ""Find out how to put your A 1200 into fifth gear with our Supertest of A 1200 RAM cards and accelerators". Note redirect may be a good solution here. Pavlor (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Random-access memory: I believe all the information that isn't already in the target is non-encyclopedic, but if I'm wrong, a Merge will work as well. Owen× ☎ 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Upon a first read, I also considered whether it would ever warrant more than a passing mention in the Random-access memory article, but then I took a look at the SIMM and DIMM articles and got a decent idea of the potential that this article has. You wouldn't propose merging those into the RAM article, would you? Figuring out how to do a resource search in the first place is the tough part because these devices were pretty much obsolete by the time the world wide web came around, and many other searches just get you buried in ads for people and company selling RAM cards, but searching through 1980's computer magazine archives on Google Books turned up some lengthy review articles that will also produce specific product names that can be searched further for more references. I've started that ball rolling on the article's talk page discussion that is going on. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels: You asked, You wouldn't propose merging those into the RAM article, would you? My answer is, Yes, I would, if SIMM and DIMM didn't contain any encyclopedic information beyond what is already in Random-access memory. A redirect doesn't erase the RAM card page's history. If at any future point the section about RAM card in the merged article becomes large enough to warrant its own page, we can easily split them back. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Random-access memory per OwenX. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redirect this to Random-access memory. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no new delete rationale in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HK-47[edit]

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

Supporting video game character that fails GNG. Reception is a big list of listicles ("Empire listed HK-47 as the 43rd greatest video game character" etc.), and two niche awards. Game Developers Choice Awards is notable but this character just won the small "Original Game Character of the Year" category that was awarded for just for years, and the other award, Computer Gaming World's 2003 "NPC of the Year" , is apparently so niche it is not even mentioned in CGWs' article. And both awards are sourced to primary sources, indicating that this character receiving said awards wasn't noticed outside press releases. There's no analysis nor information why this character won said awards (the source for the first award doesn't contain that informatin, the second press release just states the editors found him memorable, and even mispells his name as HK-41). The best WP:ATD-R I can think of would be to redirect (perhaps merge a bit) to that character's article in the game they appeared in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 6 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It's been picked up in academic and other books
1. Two solid pages of SIGCOV here (published by Rowman and Littlefield) [9]
2. Few paragraphs here (Taylor and Francis) [10]
3. There's also coverage in a Boss Fight Books work that has interviews with developers, but is a secondary source: [11]

—siro χ o 03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Besides the aforementioned sources, there is also a GamesRadar+ piece, a PCGamesN piece and a Vice piece on the droid. He is a very notable character by video game standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. A cursory look through Internet Archive shows several print sources discussing the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Fair enough, my BEFORE this time did not do so well. If the article is not improved, closer, please tag it with ((sources exist)) or ping me so that I do it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chi-an[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it would be best for there to be a North Korea squad at the 1966 FIFA World Cup article, or something a kin to that title. Most of the squad player articles fail GNG, this nomination is only pointing to one player article. And frankly it doesn't pass GNG, looking online is tough, there maybe WP:OFFLINESOURCES, but at the end of the day there are concerns and I get the nomination. However, I believe we need to WP:PRESERVE here, there is the famous squad that beat Italy 1-0 in an upset. And we need to be careful what we do and how to present the information we have. The report links at 1966 FIFA World Cup are all out of date, (not helping). In my opinion, a squad list article needs to be created with a PRESERVED redirect for the name. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 21:04, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think additional relistings would settle the divide between those editors who believe sourcing is sufficient and those who don't think this is true. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Urwin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2019, but kept, largely as a result of his League Cup appearance for Bradford City in 2014 under the old WP:FOOTYN guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Urwin

But here's the kicker: he never even played in that game. Soccerbase and Soccerway show he came on as sub for Mason Bennett, but the English National Football Archive shows that Mark Yeates actually came on. This makes a lot more sense as Urwin is a goalkeeper and Bennett is a forward. This tweet by Bradford City proves it: https://twitter.com/officialbantams/status/514506817209393153

Therefore this non-notable semi-pro footballer meets neither the current WP:NSPORT general notability guidelines, or the old WP:FOOTYN ones Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I find, nothing more than a roster report [12]. Delete for not meeting notability criteria, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources out there given his lengthy non-league career, such as this and this and this etc. - all from a fairly quick Google search. @Oaktree b: you have not even got the correct sport in your search, let alone the correct player. @Angelo.romano and Govvy: please reconsider given the sources available. Giant Snowman 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like a ball sport, I'm not familiar with the differences... Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then, respectfully, you should not be commenting. Giant Snowman 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-league footballer with a lot of coverage in English media during his time with a number of different clubs. I've expanded the article, and will continue to do so later, but I am busy tonight so it will probably be tomorrow. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also will move to Matt Urwin once AfD finalised, as this appears to be the more WP:COMMONNAME. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman and Davidlofgren1996. Player with ongoing career with sources. Article needs improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been greatly expanded. It would be helpful if the editors advocating Delete reviewed the new content and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of match recaps, interviews, and transactional/injury announcements, but not much in the way of significant independent secondary coverage. The best is the Telegraph and Argus piece mentioned above, but it's just a local interview interspersed with a few brief sentences of background facts. That's not enough to justify a standalone.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage. The pieces mentioned above do more than enough to qualify as secondary coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with the WP:THREE sources provided above by GiantSnowman. // Timothy :: talk 21:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ especially with respect to the depth of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Peace International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 13 years ago. I'm not finding significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and Colorado. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with what's written in the nomination. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is substantial coverage in the Fort Collins Coloradoan. Here is a meaty piece on a joint effort of COPI and the local Soroptomist Club in the Jackson Hole News and Guide. This is just the continuation of a front-page story from the Star-Herald. That should nudge us past WP:NORG. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the article does meet WP:ORG there seems to be just about enough coverage to satisfy. As well as the articles given by Nat Gertler, I found an article from the LA Times that mentions them. The article could use more references but I don't see a need to delete. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 00:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times article is a 1 line mention, hardly WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 30 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!} 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A worthy article for Wikipedia. Needs more sourcing. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being worthy is not necessarily the same as notable. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, like Nat Gertler above, I am seeing enough on newspapers.com to suggest that this could go beyond the threshold needed for WP:NORG. Albeit a fair chunk is related more specifically to the founder Binh Rybacki, yet it seems the two are broadly indistinguishable. Coverage combined seems enough to me that we can look at retaining, though would be good to actually get the material written to the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW. No point dragging this debate out any longer; extensive reasons have been given for deleting the article, which have quickly found unanimous agreement by everyone except the now-blocked article author. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Karason[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography about a person who does not meet inclusion guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. The references in the article are not significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and my own search does not turn up any either. Whpq (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilhouetteCastle misrepresenting editors, unhelpful garish walls of text. ——Serial 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please see my reply to you below as to why I disagree. Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' also agrees that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)— SilhouetteCastle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: SilhouetteCastle (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment You've misrepresented what @Significa liberdade said. They said:
Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page.
— User:Significa liberdade 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Removing the WP:A7 is not the same as agreeing that the subject is notable
This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.
— WP:A7
Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Philipnelson99 I disagree that I have misrepresented @Significa liberdade

@Significa liberdade believes 'Caroline Karason' to be notable.

In this, 'Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason' no one has identified an unreliable source within the 'Caroline Karason' article so this coupled with the speed at which the 'Red Charcoal' article was deleted by @Whpq when the final 'Red Charcoal' article held no resemblance to any published article, and because of how @Whpq quickly created this 'Caroline Karason' 'Article for deletion' within minutes of deleting the 'Red Charcoal' article which was clear of both G12 and A7, leads me to be believe that @Whpq deliberately does not want there to be an article for 'Red Charcoal' and/or 'Caroline Karason' which seems more like a personal issue even though I do not personally know the identity of @Whpq.

@Significa liberdade found 'Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason' to be notable (see below) and nobody else can point out which part in particular in the 'Caroline Karason' article is: not factual, unreliable or not sourced well.

------

Here's the full text on @Significa liberdade Talk Page:

'Hi I disagree with your attempt to delete the Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason page. Please see my reasons on the Red Charcoal talk page. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have seen your response at 23:05 and I have seen that the reason has changed from G12 to A7.

I wrote the page and (also the IMDB page) and the reason why Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason is notable is because the invention that she was not credited for by Reckitt Benckiser while working on Veet was later cited twice in two patents for the treatment of Cancer. Once in 2019 and again in 2021, 9 and 11 years after Caroline Karason invented the product.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:9yKSN-GCB0IC

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705407_Identifying_a_Rapid_In-Vitro_Screening_Test_Method_to_Assess_Dermal_Irritancy_Potentials_Across_a_Range_of_Veet_Formulations_Containing_Potassium_Thioglycolate_Reckitt_Benckiser

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C

Cancer Treatment patents that cited

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10925895B2/en

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10463692B2/en

As part of the Miss Great Britain pageant in 2023, Caroline Karason also supported Cancer Research. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but while I was adding these references the article was prematurely deleted. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this nomination for deletion. Here are 6 reliable sources: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-karason-v-the-gateway-learning-community-trust-and-others-3202421-slash-2019-and-3201748-slash-2020

https://www.missgreatbritainofficial.co.uk/gallery_post/caroline-karason/ (I'm even in the group photos and videos on the website)

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/701a2e94-ebdd-4153-a0b8-6cb338692137

www.redcharcoalmusic.com https://redcharcoalmusic.com/about

Amazon = books

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705817_Assessing_the_Relationship_Between_Instrumental_and_Perceived_Sensory_Attributes_of_Commercially_Available_Personal_Care_Products — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilhouetteCastle (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRS for Music, PPL etc. music

I feel that Wikipedia does not want to include 'Caroline Karason' or 'Red Charcoal'. I have given good evidence and good explanations. I have included a photo but it seems like the intention here is to not include me regardless of how reliable a source I hand in is.

My LinkedIn which i have had for about 10 years also has all the companies that I am connected with and my other social media even has photos of me and the Veet team.

www.carolinekarason.com https://www.carolinekarason.com/

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly nowhere close to meeting the the guidelines for inclusion. A search turns up a handful of blogs and self-published sites. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ @Philipnelson99 Please provide a sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not backed up by a reliable source. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON applies. Again. ——Serial 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I disagree for the reasons below SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am listed in the Music Producers Guild Directory https://mpg.org.uk/members-directory/

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-karason-v-the-gateway-learning-community-trust-and-others-3202421-slash-2019-and-3201748-slash-2020

https://www.missgreatbritainofficial.co.uk/gallery_post/caroline-karason/ (I'm even in the group photos and videos on the website)

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/701a2e94-ebdd-4153-a0b8-6cb338692137

www.redcharcoalmusic.com https://redcharcoalmusic.com/about

Amazon = books

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705817_Assessing_the_Relationship_Between_Instrumental_and_Perceived_Sensory_Attributes_of_Commercially_Available_Personal_Care_Products

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/scores-of-miss-great-britain-contenders-put-through-their-paces-at-chesterfield-hotel-4338635

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:9yKSN-GCB0IC

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Beauty pageants, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended repetition. ——Serial 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please see my reply to you below. Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' agrees that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this page should be deleted for all the reasons I mentioned above and also because the Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' (she/her) also believes that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. On her talk page it says this: 'Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)'

So its strange that I should receive a nomination for deletion for 'Caroline Karason' when 'Red Charcoal' is the same person and has the same life history

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article again:

As I have mentioned before, another Wikipedia Editor, 'Significa liberdade' already believes 'Caroline Karason' to be 'notable' (see her Talk Page). So please highlight which part/s are not factual, unreliable or not sourced well.

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Admin note I have deleted the reproduction of the entire article from the above comment. The article is the article, and this page is for discussion of whether it meets the criteria to be on Wikipedia; it is not for reproducing the entire article. LadyofShalott 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing here satisfies notability. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996 I understand your admin note, however, I disagree about your comments regarding notability as another Wikipedia Editor agrees that it is notable and no one has specifically commented on which sentence in particular they found to be unreliable in the entire 'Caroline Karason' article and it seems that @Whpq nominated this article for deletion more for a personal reason and not because it is genuinely 'unreliable' as they failed to point out which part exactly in the article that they have an issue with. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilhouetteCastle, the issue here is not reliability but notability. Notability depends on the subject of the article and the sources that have covered them, not any particular content. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - [edict conflict] Hi SilhouetteCastle, it was my admin note. I have not commented on notability. I will point out though that I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. For an article subject to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards (and rather jargonny use of the term) the subject must have multiple secondary sources about said subject. LadyofShalott 14:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning, etc

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- - ~~Do Not Delete~~ I am not confusing 'notability' and 'verifiability'.
    
    This thread is based on 'reliability' of sources to which I believe all sources are reliable. No one has specifically mentioned otherwise.
    
    @Maddy from Celeste Introduced 'notability' and my reply was that in addition to having 'reliable' sources this article is also satisfies 'notability'.
    
    'verifiability' has just been introduced right now by @LadyofShalott but my response is, that if the sources are 'reliable' then they are most likely 'verifiable' also. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - - The first line of this page says "inclusion guidelines" while linking to WP:Notability, so notability was at question from the beginning. LadyofShalott 14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Do Not Delete~~ @LadyofShalott Ok, but there was an emphasis on 'reliable sources' and by that time @Whpq was already aware that @Significa liberdade already found 'Caroline Karason' to be notable as they (@Whpq) was the same person that deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page and suspiciously and speedily put this one up for nomination for deletion. This is way it think its a 'personal' reason that @Whpq has nominated this article. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails Wikipedia's guidelines on the sourcing requirements for articles on living people, as well as the general biography guidelines. Please see WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:ANYBIO. @SilhouetteCastle: please do not reply to this comment; you have nothing new to say, and you will not change anyone's mind by repeatedly posting walls of text in response. If you do reply to me or anyone else, within reason, I shall be forced to seek you be blocked from editing this page for the remainder of this discussion. ——Serial 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Do Not Delete~~ @--serialThis new what I want to say, I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used.

This whole discussion hangs on this because @Whpqis the same person who deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page and nominated this one the 'Caroline Karason' one for deletion. That is neither reasonable nor fair and you blocking/covering/ distracting from my comments so a lack of reasonableness and sound judgement so if you would like to seek to have me blocked for merely defending myself against and absurd situation then I will do the same to you based on this reasoning.

I will not be bullied nor intimidated by you. @--serial SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have failed to find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ @Schazjmd Please provide a sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not backed up by a reliable source. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilhouetteCastle, the purpose of an AfD discussion is to establish notability, not verifiability. Also, you can only provide a bolded recommendation (Delete, Keep, Do Not Delete) once per discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *I have a disability which affects how I write, the speed at which I write and how my text is displayed. Some of my replies have been hidden but here are the main points:

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1) Gov.uk is a reliable source

2) @Significa liberdade believes that Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason is notable

3) It is suspicious that the same person @whpq should delete my Red Charcoal page after there was found to be no conflicts in the final version and immediately puts this one up for nomination for deletion

4) @whpq also fails to pinpoint which sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that they find to be unreliable

5) I am not misrepresenting anyone I have 'at' @Significaliberdade who is free to comment

6) It is also strange that another user is hiding my very sound arguments behind orange/red banners to make my points seem less credible and to make distractions for everyone.

7) Up til now no one has commented on a specific sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that they have found to be unreliable instead I am being silenced for pointing this very important point out

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In a deletion discussion, nobody has to comment on a specific sentence in the article. The opinions in a discussion are typically based on guidelines. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ @Philipnelson99 That may be the case, but because of the unfair way that @Whpq speedily put this article up for nomination for deletion within seconds of deleting the 'Red Charcoal' article just after @Significa liberdade believed 'Caroline Karason' to be notable and just I had made amendments that had no violations and that coupled with the fact that no one in this whole discussion can point to a specific passage in the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not reliable yet people are passionately agreeing for this article to be deleted, looks highly suspicious to me which is why a reasonable approach would be to highlight the passages/sentences that are presumed to be 'unreliable' so that the focus can be on those parts and thus this becomes a sound and fair issue for debate. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And stop saying "Do not delete", you get one vote only. Also, stop replying to people. ——Serial 15:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC, the question here is whether the article meets the minimum standards for notability, which is significant coverage of the article subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. I've replied to the last post on your talk and would be happy to continue to discuss this with you there, but you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ @Valereee I disagree, but I have seen your message my talk page and I can reply to you there too. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instances of Red Charcoal were deleted due to copyright concerns. As already posted to your talk page, you need to provide evidence to VRT that you are the copyright holder of that text. Given the issues of copyright in Red Charcoal, it's natural to look at your other contributions to ensure there were no other copyright concerns. I verified there were no copyright concerns. But what I did see was that this article did not meet WP:N, aka "notability", aka "inclusion guidelines". As such, I nominated it for deletion. In order to have this article kept, you will need to provide sources that cover the subject (Caroline Karason) with some amount of detail, and not just brief mentions. These sources must be independent and reliable. What needs to be shown would be coverage about Caroline Karason in things like newspapers and magazines. Note that the scope and reach of such publications would be a factor in deciding notability. For example, a profile piece in Vogue magazine would be contribute much more to establishing notability than coverage in a local community newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Do Not Delete~~@whpq I am happy that you replied because I cannot find an email address to provide evidence to VRT. However, i don't think it would be necessary anymore for reasons mentioned below. Also, its interesting that even though you are aware that 'Red Charcoal' and 'Caroline Karason' are the same person you did not have any concerns regarding 'reliability' of sources or 'notability' for Red Charcoal. You were also aware that @Significa liberdade believed 'Caroline Karason' (who is 'Red Charcoal') to be notable. You also deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page just after the final edit which did not include any resemblance to any article. So that's why I believe you then putting this 'Caroline Karason' article up for nomination for deletion and for nomination for deletion for reliability of sources when that was not an issue with the 'Red Charcoal' article is very strange indeed.

You have also prevented me from re-adding the Red Charcoal final edit which has no violations which is is also very strange and suspicious as I have mentioned.

So will you now allow me to re-create the 'Red Charcoal' article? SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilhouetteCastle, this is WP:disruptive. Please do not make any more posts to this discussion unless someone pings you with a direct question, you've made your point. No need to reply to this ping, I just wanted to make sure you saw this. Valereee (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~~Do Not Delete~~ @Valereee I disagree and I have now replied you on my Talk page SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of Red Charcoal included copied content resulting in the deletion for copyright concerns. Those copyright issues were the sole reason that article was deleted. You are free to add text about Red Charcoal in Caroline Karason so long as it is not copied from another source. However, I do not think that will make any difference to the outcome of this deletion as the lack of needed coverage is true under both the names "Caroline Karason" and "Red Charcoal". As for recreating Red Charcoal, that would be considered a duplicate topic to Caroline Karason so anything that needs to be said about Red Charcoal should be in the Caroline Karason article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG nor is she notable as an academic. --Mvqr (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~~Do Not Delete~~ @Mvqr I disagree. But I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've p-blocked from this discussion. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to SilhouetteCastle, Whpq, and others: I want to make it clear that I did not remove the A7 because I believed Karason was notable. Rather, I decided it was overkill to tag the Red Charcoal page with both G12 and A7. Further, as others have noted, removing an A7 tag does not mean the person is notable. Rather, it can be an indication that a person might be notable. In this case, I wanted to see more RSes to determine notability. If the G12 didn't pass on Red Charcoal, I would have returned to the page, potentially to submit to AFD myself. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additionally, based on some of the comment's SilhouetteCastle has made above, this also seems like an issue regarding conflict of interest. Under the WP:BLUDGEON applies. Again section from Serial at 14:10, 6 December, SilhouetteCastle writes, "Here I am listed in the Music Producers Guild Directory" (emphasis added). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Significa liberdade, everyone knows you were being misrepresented. The first time might have been accidental, as our speedy criteria can be esoteric, but after they'd been repeatedly told, they were clearly just trolling. ——Serial 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Now that I've reviewed the sources provided on the new page. At present, none of the sources indicate that Karason meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or WP:NMUSICIAN. As an academic, she has only had 3 citations with 11 articles published since 2008. Patents don't indicate notability. There's only one secondary source (Derbyshire Times), and Karason isn't even named in the article. A prior search for sources turned up nothing better. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of GNG or other notability, no evidence of the published reviews for her self-published books that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the article is still so heavily promotional that I think G12 applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find significant secondary sources for her. I also searched for her under her performance name and as an author. Rublamb (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches do not provide evidence of notability. Many of the sources cited by the article do not mention her. Employment tribunal papers are cited as sources - but they are primary sources and do not establish notability. I wondered whether this was an article cobbled together from items found on Google, making the assumption that all references to "Caroline Karason" must be to the same person. The only evidence that the references that do name her are talking about the same person is self-published, and therefore does not count under Wikipedia rules as a reliable source, except as a source for what she says about herself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:23, 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.

Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Hongsy (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gold Creek (neé Fine Gold, California)[edit]

Contested PROD. Only passing mentions to a Fine Gold Creek and a Fine Gold mining district could be found, with no clear evidence that these are connected to the supposed "community". Cited sources are either broken (ref. 2) or passing mentions that establish existence but not notability. The name does appear on the USGS topographic quads for Millerton Lake (1945, 1:62500) and Mariposa (1947, 1:250000) [13], but no other maps before or since that I can locate. Satellite images reveal a rural intersection with a few scattered farmhouses in the area. Clearly not a notable location and without any other documentation than GNIS this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"Fine Gold Creek"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

For obvious reasons it's not really worth checking the 1888 Lippincott's or the 1893 Polk's, but I did so anyway just in case the article was wrong about the dates. Nothing. The Arcadia Publishing book on Madera County (ISBN 9780738529844) has nothing, too, which is usually indicative.
However there is plenty in Wood 1912, p. 34 about three Fine Gold creeks (the main one and two forks, Little and North) for this to be renamed and refactored into Fine Gold Creek. The town might be lost to history, but we still have geography. As is commonly the case with California, we look to the hydrology. Sometimes a place is a hot spring, or a creek.
And for a second source there are an awful lot of documented old mines on Fine Gold Creek in Crawford 1894.
The icing on the cake is that the Guddes (Gudde 2009, p. 115) say that this is a gulch/creek too. There are plenty of confirmatory statements about things being "in Fine Gold Gulch" in Crawford 1894, such as the Neversweat and Little Willie mines for example.
There's even stuff about a Fine Gold gold deposit, although beware of the self-published book that you will turn up. The truth seems to be that the GNIS and the Durham book are misleading us, and this wasn't a town but a mining camp that was all along a gulch with a creek that we have plenty of documentation for down to the individual mines. Fine Gold Gulch/Creek do turn up in the history books, even. They're in Kyle et al. 2002 (and also in the older non-SUP-revised edition).
This seems a prime candidate for the Project:WikiProject Kentucky/GNIS cleanup document-the-creek-with-mines approach.
Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source that specifically states it was a mining camp, and updated the article accordingly. It's a self-published source and not reliable, but more likely correct than what GNIS has to say. I maintain that notability is not met, but if you'd be willing to look up some data on the mines and add it, I would reconsider. The truth is, nearly every minor stream in the slopes of the Sierra Nevada was prospected for gold at one time; the fact that somewhat more documentation exists for this creek than most isn't by itself enough to make it notable in my opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll give it the Kentucky treatment. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

Wood, Beatrice Dawson (1912). "Fine Gold Creek". Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California. U.S.G.S. Water-supply papers. California State Water Commission.
Crawford, J. J. (1894). "Gold — Madera County". Mines and Mineral Resources of California. Report of the State Mineralogist. Vol. 12. Sacramento: California State Mining Bureau. pp. 153–167.
Gudde, Erwin G. (2009). "Fine Gold: Creek/Gulch". In Gudde, Elisabeth K. (ed.). California Gold Camps: A Geographical and Historical Dictionary of Camps, Towns, and Localities Where Gold Was Found and Mined; Wayside Stations and Trading Centers. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520261440.
Kyle, Douglas E.; Rensch, Hero Eugene; Rensch, Ethel Grace; Hoover, Mildred Brooke; Abeloe, William (2002). "Madera County". Historic Spots in California (5th ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804778176.

Californians. Writing about water. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has been refactored; discussing the topic as a notable geographic region using in-depth sources is much better than the original miscrostubs sourced only to directories of place names. At least in my judgement, there is enough coverage existing for this area for it to meet WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 16:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved it qualifies under notability and also Heymann Principle etc. jengod (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Netherlands–Turkey relations. RL0919 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Netherlands, Ankara[edit]

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

Article merely confirms embassy exists. The Turkish version of this article isn't much better. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Netherlands, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete Embassies aren't notable just for existing, and there isn't any other claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands–Turkey relations, where the embassy is mentioned. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pointless, since the only information conveyed there is that said embassy is in Ankara, which one already has to know in order to follow the proposed redirect. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gidonb. I believe the amount of content would be more of interest in a possible merger. There is no harm in having a redirect. Aintabli (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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