< December 07	December 09 >

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aneliya Kukunova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival. Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Ale Kino! Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A N/C at the last AfD and unsurprisingly, no coverage of the specific year's events has turned up in the intervening years. A redirect to Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival would be fine but didn't want to do it unilaterally following an AfD. Star Mississippi 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Poland. Star Mississippi 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the festival per my extensive argument (as the nom) in the previous AfD. We should also do it for the few other editions that have separate articles. Note no pl wiki interwiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Al Fateh[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ yaguzi (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article overwhelmingly relies on uncited web pages of the Anti-Defamation League, a potentially partial source regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict (WP:RSPADL), and other generally unreliable sources such as MEMRI TV (WP:RSP). No sources that are unaffiliated with and/or non-supportive of Israel are cited, failing WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. Its subject is not notable on its own and fails WP:N criteria; references to it on the internet consist entirely of biased sources, the reliability of which have not been established by WP:RSP, and no references in written sources exist; hence, no improvements to the article via additional references are possible. The article consists, barring the lede, exclusively of a 'Criticism' section, failing WP:CRIT. The only generally-reliable source cited, ADL, has since removed all references to the magazine from their website. Therefore, the existence of the magazine itself is unverifiable, and potentially a hoax (WP:HOAX). (proposed by Yaguzi) yaguzi (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, Websites, Palestine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion this is somehow a hoax does not bear even the slightest scrutiny. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows many works discussing this publication, e.g.:

Mozes and Weimann, The E-Marketing Strategy of Hamas (2009), Studies in Conflict & Terrorism [1] (paywall)
IMPACT-E, Al-Fateh – The Hamas Web Magazine for Children: Incitement to Terror, Annihilation and Self-Destruction [2]
Boaz Ganor, Katharina von Knop, Using the Internet for Terrorist Recruitment and Mobilization in Carlos A. M, Hypermedia Seduction for Terrorist Recruiting, [3]

Many of the cites on the web page are more like blog-post pieces than mainstream journalism, but the suggestion that sources connected to Israel are inherently unreliable seems unsupportable. If there are pro-Al-Fateh reliable sources discussing this publication someone can add them to the article but false balance isn't balance either. Oblivy (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to scrutinize each of these sources, it becomes apparent that no non-internet based sources exist to support the fact that the magazine ever existed. The only link that the first article makes between Hamas and the magazine is as such:

"In this site the connection to the Hamas organization is the clearest. The Hamas logo and the operational division logo are both shown clearly."

If anything, this now-defunct website is not affiliated with a print magazine, and has questionable institutional links to Hamas. yaguzi (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As pointed out above, no notability problem. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP does apply. gidonb (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. What is pointed above does not address the notability problem, since the topic of this article is not covered in a reliable and independent source. Of the three sources cited above, the first two have been written with an genda in mind, the second is further unreliable given its publishing by a fringe 'research institution', IMPACT-SE, and the third merely makes trivial references in passing. The notability problem is made clear if you search for "Al Fateh" on any search engine, where it is clear that Wikipedia is the only prominent source, and that the name of this supposed magazine is shared by a football team, a basketball team, a mosque, a university, a hospital, the Arabic rendition of the honorific name for Mehmed II, and is simply a common word in Arabic. Furthermore, there seems to have been another magazine with an entirely different political ideology operating in Pakistan, according to this scholarly article. I do not think that renaming the article is a solution for this either, given the lack of notability as I have restated above. yaguzi (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to argue with each participant in an AfD. In fact there is a strong recommendation against that. Rather, you should assume that each respondent has already read your intro and taken it into full consideration, ahead of doing their own due dilligence and reaching their conclusions. Some of the claims you made above are plainly wrong and fit into a wider scheme of unnescessary AfD nominations and creation of POVFORKs that tend to conincide with times of political tension. Here are a few good sources:

Mozes, Tomer; Weimann, Gabriel (2010). "The E-Marketing Strategy of Hamas". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 33 (3): 213–214. doi:10.1080/10576100903555762. S2CID 11112469
Weimann, Gabriel (2005). “Terrorist Dot Com: Using the Internet for Terrorist Recruitment and Mobilization”, in James Forest (Ed.), The Making of a Terrorist. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 53-65.
Goldman, Dudi (3 August 2008). "Hamas website: Kids, die for Allah". Ynet, Tel Aviv, Israel.

The article by Weimann has later been updated and the mention of the Al-Fateh website above is not in passing. Yediot Ahronot (with its portal Ynet) is Israel's most sold newspaper. There is more than sufficient SIGCOV, RS, and Independent coverage for the WP:GNG. The article is a legitimate WP:SPINOFF for the Hamas article. Gabriel Weimann is a fine academic and an authority in his field, Dudi Goldman a famous Israeli journalist. Goldman has an article at Hewiki and should have one here as well. Your nomination and the suggestion that this is a hoax are not serious and waste time for the WP community. Arguing with each participant worsens the impact. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I was unaware of the recommendation against replying, which I had attempted in good faith — I am not too used to deletion requests, as I usually like to add to Wikipedia.

Iin light of these more credible sources, I will update the article (and perhaps move it to "Al Fateh (magazine)", given my reasoning above), and close this discussion via speedy keep. yaguzi (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SCH-U470[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence that this was a notable Samsung mobile and am unable to find a viable redirect target within the worlds of Samsung or Verizon Wireless. Star Mississippi 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added two significant coverage sources. This model, usually under the name "Juke", received far more news coverage than most Samsung models, and we have an article pretty much for every one of the others. Owen× ☎ 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since there are articles about every iPhone model, then this device deserves an article, too. -Mardus /talk 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject just meets the WP:GNG with the current sources, primarily due to its notable design. User:Let'srun 18:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Wellington[edit]

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

There was an opinion voiced here that this embassy is notable. Rather than risk having the entire mass nomination derailed, I’ve decided to split off this one. Naturally, I disagree that it’s notable: a couple of bomb scares and a security boost — something common to pretty much all US embassies — do not make for a notable building; they’re entirely routine coverage. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and it now focusses on the embassy building and its predecessors. The current building was purpose-built in 1977. Unfortunately, there's only a South Island newspaper (The Press) available online; none of the Wellington papers are accessible. Still, The Press had quite decent coverage when the new building was dedicated on 3 July 1977. User:Kiwichris, if you happen to be at the National Library over the next few days, would you mind having a look how the Wellington newspapers reported on the event? Schwede 66 04:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I probably won't be able to get to the National Library while this AfD is active. I have however added some more recent (but offline) info from Wellington papers about the embassy. Kiwichris (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Focusing on the building itself was a good decision. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Future![edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that Dieker or the band (also Dieker) meet N:MUSIC. A BEFORE identifies only interviews and social media sourcing. NB: there are a lot of hits as someone with this name writes for Bankrate. Star Mississippi 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Women. Star Mississippi 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dieker (yes, the same one) seems to have shifted away from music to become a full time writer. As a writer she is the author of the "Larkin Day" series of murder mysteries (book #4 is in-process), a few other books and a gazillion freelance "personal finance" articles for a variety of periodicals (including but not limited to Bankrate). Here's her Vox bio; here's the mystery series and here's her Amazon page.

...but so far as I can tell, the band is on hiatus. I think I'd have to agree she's not particularly notable now as a Band.

Blogjack (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck, I just contacted Dieker (we used to be colleagues) and confirmed the band is defunct. I wrote most of this article ages ago while working to fill out coverage of "nerd-folk" as a musical category. At the time the band was still active and doing interesting things, but it never "broke out"; she's done with it and has moved on.

So unless someone has an argument that the article SHOULDN'T be removed, let's go ahead and remove it. Blogjack (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once arguably almost-notable, but not currently so. --Blogjack (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear argument for notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Étienne (athlete)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Never won a medal and placed 24th in the 1975 Pan American Games,. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Haiti. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating this article for deletion because it gives us a chance to improve it. This subject is very difficult to research because his name is the same as a prominent French ambassador and most Haitian sources are in French. What we do know is that he competed at six events at major international championships (100m and 200m at 1976 Olympics, 1975 Pan Ams, 1975 University Games) and that he was an associate of then-president Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. These connections need to be looked into further before a deletion decision is made. --Habst (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person who could run a bit, but sadly not fast enough to make them remotely notable on that count. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterWizzy, thank you for your reply. This discussion is a difficult one because we decide whether to keep an article based on notability, not speed -- although the two are definitely correlated. Étienne ran the men's 200m at the 1976 Olympics. I did the research, and it appears that every single 200m Olympian currently has an article from 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948, 1936, 1932, and 1928.

I had to go all the way back to 1924 to find a single men's 200m athlete without an article. It would defy probability to say that Étienne is the only 200m Olympian, including many of his contemporaries who were slower than him, from that time period out of thousands who is not notable. This combined with the fact that his name is the same as a prominent French ambassador, is why I think what we do know about him needs to be researched further before we decide to delete. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Getting into the Olympics because he's a pal of a dictator does not constitute notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument either. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend, thank you for your vote because it helps us think more about the article. The reason why I brought up Étienne's probable association with Duvalier is because I think it might be one of many leads for research on reliable sources. For example, see the article about Dieudonné LaMothe, who was a contemporary of Étienne and selected for the same reason, and there are many reliable sources about him.

re WP:OTHER, thank you for pointing that out, it's absolutely true that just because something else exists, that should affect decisions made on an unrelated or marginally related thing. My argument isn't that because these articles exist, then Étienne's article should exist -- it's just used as a probabilistic indication of notability, similar to how the rules in WP:NSPORTS are laid out to say "reliable sources are likely to exist for these articles if..." If sources exist for hundreds (thousands?) of other 200m Olympians without exception since 1928, it would stand to reason that sources likely exist for Étienne too -- we just need to find them, which is why I think we need to investigate the leads we have further before proceeding to delete. What do you think about that? --Habst (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Keep arguments read a lot like WP:OSE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. A note to Habst, this subject ran in the 100m, not the 200m. User:Let'srun 17:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, thank you for your vote. A note to Habst, this subject ran in the 100m, not the 200m -- I think this sentence is exactly why we need to improve this article -- the subject actually did run in the 200m (see source), but the article currently only mentions his 100m run. I totally agree that just saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a defense -- that's why I am asking you to help us find Haitian or other sources for Étienne. I tried, but I could not find any tools at WP:LIBRARY that cover Haiti from that time period. Do you know of any leads? --Habst (talk) 18:44, 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 Tainted mess‎ courtesy of a brand new account, and a separate obvious scammer targeting the article and AfD. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back to AfD if folks believe Al-Ghaili is not notable. NB: the page being "poorly cited" is a reason for clean up, not deletion. I recommend that be addressed or deemed not possible via a BEFORE prior to any further nomination. Star Mississippi 17:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem Al-Ghaili[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Vinnyb1322 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page in question is poorly cited, primarily drawing from the subjects personal social media feeds rather than a reliable source (See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

Additionally, the page is for a figure of minimal public note. Arguably, the figure in question does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Science, Pakistan, Yemen, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vinnyb1322, your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to get this article deleted. Why did it attract your interest, as a new editor? How did you discover AFD on your first day as an editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and a completely fair assertion! I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but have never contributed. I learned about the AfD process in the book "All the Knowledge in the World" by Simon Garfield. This book is what made me curious in contributing more to the site.

I came across the article, and found the content to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reviewing the talk page, the discussion is primarily skeptical of the content of the page. With one Wikipedian saying in 2018 that they would nominate the page for deletion if they were more familiar with the process.

The page is worded in an aggrandizing manner, and reads more like a brag sheet or resume than an unbiased collection of facts. I attempted to clean up the article myself, but while attempting to find more reliable sources for the information in the article I came up empty handed. That's why I moved towards deleting the page! Vinnyb1322 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinnyb1322, well, I appreciate the full explanation. I think you can understand how this is atypical behavior for a brand new editor. I'm relisting this discussion so hopefully, it can get more opinions for other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Vinnyb1322's assertion that this page should be deleted. Instead, it needs to be improved using updated sources. I have done a quick search and there is sufficient reliable sources about this public figure. I'm listing some of them here:

- BBC: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180222-the-man-with-16-million-fans

- CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/nuclear-sky-hotel/index.html

- Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2022/12/11/human-population-and-a-technology-innovation-to-blow-your-mind/?sh=1b51c9b219d6

- Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2022/07/01/would-you-take-a-sky-cruise-in-a-nuclear-powered-flying-hotel/?sh=4c1cac76e0e8

- New York Post: https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/inside-giant-flying-luxury-hotel-that-can-stay-in-the-air-for-years/

- The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sky-cruise-flying-hotel-ai-nuclear-b2110050.html

- Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/science/hashem-al-ghaili-interview-sci-fi-film-orbital

- Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/culture/megastructure-orbital-ring-around-earth-film

- Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11529371/Could-BIRTHING-PODS-solve-Elon-Musks-fears-population-collapse.html

- Design Boom: https://www.designboom.com/technology/hashem-al-ghaili-ectolife-the-worlds-first-artificial-womb-facility-12-14-2022/

- DW: https://www.dw.com/en/successful-on-facebook-hashem-al-ghailis-advice-for-the-right-strategy/a-36369881

- Space.com: https://www.space.com/orbital-indie-sci-fi-trailer

- Arab News: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1336071/middle-east

- The Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/flying-hotel-never-lands-could-27333572

- Metro UK: https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/27/design-for-a-nuclear-powered-flying-hotel-with-swimming-pool-16899357/

- Alarabiya English: https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2018/02/22/How-a-Yemeni-man-s-love-for-science-got-him-16-million-followers-on-Facebook

There are a lot of links that can be used to improve this page. Also, Al-Ghaili has delivered 4 TEDx talks in global platforms:

1. TEDxCluj: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT-0oGDJqyo

2. TEDxRoma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5H9uGSZTyk

3. TEDxZagreb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsVj2zb6s0

4. TEDxZolior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULKQiARO6y4

- His Facebook page has over 34 million followers: https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage

- On his website, he mentions to have garnered 21 billion views: https://hashem-alghaili.com/

- He has published a Sci-Fi novel this year: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/197170429-simulation

- He has an upcoming Sci-Fi film with a trailer that garnered over 4 million views on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngO6Mnmzc8A&feature=shared

- He published two viral technology-related concepts of his own:

1. Sky Cruise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrodDBJdGuo&feature=shared

2. EctoLife artificial womb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2RIvJ1U7RE&feature=shared

My suggestion is to improve the page with new sources rather than delete it. 87.200.57.238 (talk) 01:13, 9 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!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is me, Hashem Al-Ghaili. The proposal to delete this page appears to be part of a bigger scam. I received extortion emails that demanded payments in exchange for keeping the page active. You can find the emails here: https://i.imgur.com/oLafmJC.png

The scammer is demanding a payment of $1999 to edit the page and keep it active. Is this scam run by Vinnyb1322? It's hard to tell. But one thing for sure, Vinnyb1322's account was created just to flag this article for deletion. He has never contributed to Wikipedia before, apart from proposing this article for deletion. I think it's important to protect Wikipedia's integrity by not allowing such scams to take over the platform.

I shared what I experienced on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/18epc01/a_wikipedia_admin_is_threatening_to_delete_my/

The comments there were helpful and made me confirm that there is indeed an ongoing scam behind the proposed deletion of this page. Needless to say, I'm more than happy to assist Wikipedia's admins in improving the page if the decision is to keep it. I can do so by providing authentic, reliable and up-to-date sources. However, I won't be writing about myself for self-promotion. I would rather let my work speak for itself. Thank you! HashemAlghaili (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! If it interests you, there is currently a discussion about this scam on WP:ANI, where you would be more than welcome to participate and help us!

Regarding the page, it's best for you not to write about yourself directly. There are many guidelines in place for people writing about themselves, and it's recommended to propose edits on the talk page rather than to edit your own article directly. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 06:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some context that may or may not be relevant to this discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/s/KozqxV7Zze —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: WP:SCAM. It's impossible to verify whether the Reddit post is genuine, but worth noting that this sort of deletion discussion / threat combination is a known scammer modus operandi. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Our backhand system is running out of space due to receiving 10,000 entries per day, so we all administrator’s started conducting a AFD (Article for Deletion) section survey, reaching out to those whose Wikipedia page is nominated for deletion by the Wiki moderators, and if the page owner is willing to improve the page we assist accordingly and if not Interested we move forward and submit the final repost to moderators and they delete the page and clear our records."

As an actual administrator (in fact, the third to comment here, after Liz and Ganesha): lmao. jp×g 🗯️ 03:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is this from something I did incorrectly, or would this be a scam that just trolls for new AfD discussions and uses them to extort people?

I'd like to make it clear that I had nothing to do with that email. Vinnyb1322 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem kind of sus for this to be your first edit, but they also falsely claimed to be two other users they obviously weren't, so who knows. jp×g 🗯️ 06:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep, per the BBC source from the IP, this Arab News report and this DW segment. I say reluctant because if we required BLPs to meet the equivalent of WP:CORPDEPTH he would fail by a wide margin, but that's not policy. Mach61 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halon (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software product, sourcing I find is largely download sites, primary sources or simple listings among other types of programs. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 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. Daniel (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saruda Konfay[edit]

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

The subject, a Thai women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in match reports and squad lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Thailand. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:SPORTCRIT at this time. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulza Maksuti[edit]

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

The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV is this, which isn't saying much. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:34, 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 List of Armenia women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oksanna Pizlova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International business development[edit]

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

This is just an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH essay, possibly an advertisement for the International Business Development Institute. Thenightaway (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an WP:OR essay, no salvageable content and no obvious redirect target. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PinpointBPS[edit]

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

This is advertisement for a company called PinpointBPS. There is nothing that indicates that this "methodology for process improvement in laboratories" is notable. There are lots of sources in this article, but none of the independent reliable sources actually mention "PinpointBPS". In other words, the RS are used in a WP:SYNTH way. Thenightaway (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a borderline G11. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Normally I would fully support a merge here as an AtD but given the content is entirely unsourced, I am less convinced on doing that. Should someone want to recover the content and source it to then merge to TNT Motorsports in the future, please leave me a talk page message and I'll undelete and redirect the article, so that the sourcing and merging process can take place. Daniel (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks and Tractor Power[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost 30 yr old show, on a defunct network; not much found in Gnewspapers other than basic TV Guide-type listings for individual airings. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly no enduring notability. Owen× ☎ 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting notability ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a previous AfD recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNT Motorsports which resulted in consensus to keep this article partly due to the show predating the internet and a merge to TNT Motorsports is also a viable WP:ATD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rule-developing experimentation[edit]

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

This is a concept promoted by consultant Howard Moskowitz and collaborators. There is no substantial coverage of this concept in independent reliable sourcing. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with the Moskovitz article. Thenightaway (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if the article were rewritten to sound less promotional, there's still no independent sources to suggest notability. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing the in-depth secondary coverage. Neutrality^talk 00:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War 2[edit]

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

While this will almost certainly be a notable film prior to release, right now it still very much short of WP:NFF and the coverage that's out there is just pre-release publicity hype. There isn't enough coverage of the production to show that it's notable. Article should be moved to draft space (which appears to have been tried once) and a semi-protected redirect to YRF Spy Universe created in it's place. Ravensfire (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ravensfire (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The movie has been confirmed and is in production and there is coverage on things relating to the movie, so based on that I would somewhat lean towards keeping the article. However, based on the coverage being frivolous for the most part, combined with the other merits of the topic itself, I think it's best remaining as a draft until coverage is sufficient. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% concur with the draftify. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Joga: The Film started filming, many big media sources like Variety, Bollywood Hungama, Pinkvilla confirmed the cast, Shooting location, release date.This Page has passed the Draft to Article Submission too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun Joga 38 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft would be the best for this article. Catfurball (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: WP:TOOSOON Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to DevOps as per OwenX's suggestion, per ATD. Daniel (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations[edit]

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

This is not a notable concept or idea. There is no substantial coverage of this in reliable independent sources. As far as I can tell, this term is solely used by a consulting company to advertise its services. Thenightaway (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. The purpose of this article appears to be disseminate ideas/thoughts rather than to have properly sourced encyclopedic contents. It shouldn't have been split, but condensed down. Graywalls (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DevOps: usage in IBM literature is not enough to establish independent notability, but is enough to ensure the term and key claims are verifiable, and sufficient for a one-paragraph section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Don't Nod. Daniel (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Records: Bloom & Rage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NVIDEOGAME, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The game was announced last night at The Game Awards 2023, and aside from articles briefly covering the announcement trailer, and a couple covering a teaser image released in January 2023, there's nothing in-depth about the game itself or its development.

This is a contested WP:BLAR, as there is a strong likelihood that closer to the game's release there will be sufficient sourcing for an article. There just isn't at this time. I suggest BLAR, redirecting to Don't Nod as an alternative to deletion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Don't Nod until more information is made available. It's just an announcement at this time. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As textbook WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. QuietCicada - Talk 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do want it to be kept, but will respect a redirect. Although looking back at other Don't Nod games, I don't see an AFD for anything of them, even for Jusant, and Harmony: The Fall of Reverie. Why this game? Ebbedlila (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those two page histories, both were created as redirects. Harmony's redirect was removed 10 days after it was released. It could have used more content, particularly in the reception and development sections, but at that time as a released game it passed NVIDEOGAME and CRYSTALBALL.

Jusant's redirect was removed a little over a month after it was created. At that time the game was still pending, and no release date beyond "Fall 2023" had been provided. There was however a playable demo, and Eurogamer had previewed it. That one was a bit more borderline than Harmony, and potentially could have been BLARed (and AfDed if the BLAR was challenged) under the same criteria as Lost Records. As for why no-one did it, I suspect the preview from Eurogamer helped a lot with establishing notability, though ultimately you'd be better asking the editors who contributed to the article prior to the game's release why they chose not to.

Don't get me wrong, I think Lost Records will eventually meet at least one of our notability guidelines. And I hope to contribute to the article at that time as I am interested in it, along with several other trailers that came out at The Game Awards. The problem right now is that it does not pass our notability guidelines, and we have some pretty strong policy reasons for why we don't document speculative content, like games that have little more than an announcement trailer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:45, 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. Daniel (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General jurisdiction[edit]

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

As this article has been tagged uncited for over a decade how can the reader know that it is true without doing their own research? If the reader is non-human such as ChatGPT it could spread possibly untrue info widely. Also the dePROD reason including the words ‘not be non-notable’ is hard to understand. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR as article has now been cited thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is an important concept in U.S. law, addressed by a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases. BD2412 T 18:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes sorry WITHDRAW I had not noticed you were already improving the article Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jurisdiction#General_and_limited_jurisdiction: concept is indeed important in U.S. law, but is already covered, briefly, by the target article. Adding a mention of Stump v. Sparkman would complete the merge. Not enough here for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @OwenX: That is a reasonable solution, though the extent of coverage from the LII suggests that there is more to add. If merged, I would suggest that Limited jurisdiction also be merged. BD2412 T 21:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree re: merging Limited jurisdiction into the same target. Owen× ☎ 03:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited now. Merging can be discussed elsewhere but I suspect, it might be easier and more understandable for other articles that have to distinguish the concepts to have two separate articles to link. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are numerous periodical articles entirely about this topic, such as [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and many more in Google Scholar. James500 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please note that Chidgk1 has asked to Withdraw the nom. I post separately just in case that escapes notice. This article meets GNG with sourcing from gScholar (and pretty much everywhere else). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Can be expeditiously moved back at the point in the next few weeks that the tournament reaches a stage that this article can be fleshed out. Daniel (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Australian Open – Men's singles[edit]

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

Organize this under WP:TOOSOON. At present, the article is developed with a bunch of empty sections. There are two sources, but they're information about the 2023 Australian Open. 2024 Australian Open is currently a redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the next 1 and a half months, by which time we can expect this tournament to take place and therefore be able to fill up and reference the sections (unless something crazy happens between now and then). Iffy★Chat -- 18:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify does seem like the best course of action. The framework is fine and just needs to be modified and/or filled in as events unfold. If it's deleted, then somebody else will eventually have to come back and redo all this preliminary work. Yimingbao (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2023 version is little more than a month away. Does anybody seriously think the 2024 Open will go away? What a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the comment immediately above. Don't see the point in draftifying this for a short time. ~~Duplication could occur. Better to treat as work in progress and keep.~~ Bound to be notable and have an article. Rupples (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Amended my view following enlightenment from the nominator, below. Rupples (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The empty sections, as you call it, are indeed standardized tables, so that nobody uses its own bricolage. Contributions will come soon. Stemmerter (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There's only two references and one of them relates to the winner of last year. This is WP:TOOSOON TarnishedPath^talk 03:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. In part talks about the 2024 Open.[10]. Kyrgios non-participation.[11] Brief guide[12]. Aussie wildcards.[13] 2024 changes [14] Rupples (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON is an essay not a policy, and challenges notability on events through lack of sources. The above sources aren't that in-depth but show the event is already being talked about. Rupples (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's enough to start writing about the 2024 Australian Open right now, but that's not this article. Iffy★Chat -- 09:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we are talking about one of the four biggest events of tennis... and it starts in four weeks. No reason to draftify if in two weeks the coverage will start to get massive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the Keep votes are like "trust me dude it will be big in like a couple of weeks". Anyone remember a pandemic that happened out of nowhere a few years ago that sort of stuffed everything like this up from happening? TarnishedPath^talk 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do remember and if that happened we take it from there. It's more likely perhaps that if moved to draft another editor will recreate the article not noticing it's in draft space so we have two articles and potential duplication in main space. Rupples (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument for keep. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is when we have a borderline article that in two weeks will be an overwhelming keeper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're back at "trust me dude it will be big in like a couple of weeks". TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing WP:OTHERTHINGS. My argument is based on the strong probability the tournament will go ahead in 1 month's time and sources are sufficient now to support notability. The only argument for the article's draftyfing is TOOSOON and I'm arguing it's not too soon. The information in the article is verifiable. It's explained the seedings are based on projected rankings, we know Djokovic won in 2023. The lead of the TOOSOON essay refers to the policy WP:CRYSTALBALL which states All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred and further Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Does anyone know how many times since the tournament began in 1905 it's been cancelled/postponed/delayed within a few weeks of its scheduled start date? My assumption is very few. COVID-19 merely delayed the 2021 tournament by 3 weeks. Rupples (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to someone else, I agree there's plenty of content we could add to 2024 Australian Open right now, but right now nobody's turned that redirect in to an article. This article however, is only needed once the draw is announced as we can't fit all of the tournament's draws in to a single article. Iffy★Chat -- 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: If someone tries to create an article that already exists in the draft space, they get a notice indicating that a draft already exists with a link to that draft (see Mailena or Castle of Baratuli, for example). If someone tries to create an article that already exists as a draft, they should be able to go contribute to that draft and potentially move it into the main space. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for this. My initial objection to draftifying was based on a practical consideration to prevent duplication. I'll move to a neutral position. Reason: if I'd known this I'd have been less likely to go for keep in the first place and consequently not backed that initial call with other arguments. Rupples (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as this is currently written. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NORUSH should be heeded. User:Let'srun 15:28, 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. To the editor - if you need any assistance with editing etc., I recommend contacting the Wikipedia Teahouse who can assist new editors with their enquiries. Daniel (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Amatya[edit]

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

NPERSON fail. There is only one non-primary source and it is either a passing mention or a potential paid source (given that multiple hits appear to repeat it word for word). Fermiboson (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nepal. Fermiboson (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn’t passes WP:GNG, having very low coverage. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the page. But this is a page for new author and it is still being edited. Kindly assist. Phsssttt (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Online Khabar link used as a sourcing is all I find, it's barely half a page. There might be more in the native language, but I can't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Will add more coverage as and if it happens. Seems I rushed to create the page. Thanks for reviewing! Phsssttt (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NAUTHOR and appears to be an autobiography. The same editor is currently drafting Draft:Radha: Wrath of the Maeju on his book, which has recently been declined for lack of notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it's a her, by the way. And this page is not an autobiography. But thanks for reviewing. Learning more about the page creation and working with little press coverage at the moment. Phsssttt (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
working with little press coverage then unfortunately you/Amatya are not notable. Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI or you risk being blocked. Star Mississippi 23:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:16, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians Competition[edit]

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

It does not appear to meet WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Slovakia. MarioGom (talk) 16:27, 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. Daniel (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Vera[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA Nswix (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Martial arts. Nswix (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to no coverage, either as an athlete or an actress. [15] mentions the individual, but is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA. Lethweimaster (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions and fight results are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence[edit]

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

NBOOK fail. All the reviews that could be found are blogs and otherwise not RS, and everything else is primary. Fermiboson (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, Technology, and United Kingdom. Fermiboson (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve, there's a review online by the The Orwell Society [16], a combination review and interview in Computer Weekly [17], more mentions in another CW discussion article [18], several cites in a peer-reviewed Springer journal article [19]. I think it just about clears WP:NBOOK. Wikishovel (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I (Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)) am unfamiliar with discussions ... I was trying to edit that one of the review is already an article. I refer to this reference: Golumbia, D. (2023). Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence, by Dan McQuillan. Critical AI, 1(1–2). doi:10.1215/2834703X-10734967. The Journal is Critical AI https://read.dukeupress.edu/critical-ai/[reply]

(Andrea Saltelli Saltean Thanks Wikishovel - I now read and insert the Computer Weekly one (the Orwell Society entry is already in).
Draftify while the article is being improved and the references are beefed up. Multiple mentions in Computer Weekly and other journals suggest notability, but we can reexamine the issue once we're ready to move the page back to main namespace. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Draftify. I am for the moment done with inserting the last review, so unless I receive more hints from the community I pause here. Thanks to all! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Link 3 is fine, and two more, although the first is from his publisher [20], and [21] Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oaktree. Trying now to get access to these pieces - my virtual library does not have them. Back as soon as I get them Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

McQuillan, D., Jarke, J., & Pargman, T. C. (2023). We Are at an Extreme Point Where We Have to Go All in on What We Really Believe Education Should Be About. Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/s42438-023-00433-5

Selkälä, T. (2022). Healthily futile: a quest for a different AI. Justice, Power and Resistance, 5(3), 322–330. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added a reference to the review of Selkälä; I think this should be sufficient, also because the other reference kindly suggested by Oaktree is from Mc Quillan himself. Please let me know and thanks again. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The sources now seem to get it just over the notability hurdle, but the quality is a little too lacking for mainspace. Once it has some time being polished a little, it should be fine to bring back. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify -- We have an editor, Saltean, who is keen to improve the article, and the subject passes WP:GNG. There could be an excellent, encyclopaedic article here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:00, 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. Daniel (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMU–Tulsa men's soccer rivalry[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be enough WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Oklahoma, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NRIVALRY. I have found nothing on the subject aside from the one reasonable, routine source in the article. Soccer rivalries are rarely covered in the States. Conyo14 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been through this type of topic multiple times, delete per WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither of the two sources are in-depth about any rivalry; they just mention/claim one. The second also says: "players at both schools anticipate [their match-up] annually because they know the outcome will likely determine who will prevail in Conference USA play". By this definition, every pair of competitors who are regularly facing each other in any kind of elimination tournament system in which the winner or top few competitors will advance to a higher competition are in a "rivalry", since the very purpose of such competition is to winnow them. This is really, really clearly not the meaning of "rivalry" that is either expected by our readers nor intended by WP:NRIVALRY. It refers to a subculture of animosity or faux-animosity between two teams/institutions and especially the fandom thereof, a rivalry that has a life of its own and garners source coverage unto itself, not just passingly used as word in routine game coverage or a coach interview. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trips made by Mahathir Mohamad post-premiership[edit]

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

All unregistered editors (these IP addresses are in Malaysia) of this article, Leslie cheung jin hui (talk · contribs) and 林熙隆 (talk · contribs) are sock puppets of LeonChow99 (talk · contribs) (zh:LTA:LC99). Long-term abuse and cross-wiki abuse. Txkk (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Transportation, Lists, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What exactly is the guideline/policy-related argument for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been no reason for deletion presented besides being from a LTA'er, but we don't usually document travel by a former government official after they departed their post. Nate • (chatter) 14:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I'm not sure why it's notable to compile trips made by someone no longer in office, are there any other of these? Mention the significant ones at Mahathir_Mohamad#Post-premiership_(2020–present) but we don't need every speech given compiled, no longer encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: how is this remotely encyclopedic? And the sockpuppetry issue should be handled independently in WP:RfCU. Owen× ☎ 16:17, 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 Good governance. Enough support below for establishing this redirect, despite opposition. If there is continued objection to a redirect here, that can be taken to WP:RFD to discuss; as no content was merged, nothing has to be kept long-term for attribution purposes. Daniel (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good government[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic. It's not a coherent widely-used concept. While you'll no doubt find that people have said the phrase "good government", the same is going to be the case for lots of combinations of the word "good" + a noun. Thenightaway (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible WP:ATD is a redirect to Good governance. Curbon7 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Give me a break. "Good government is a normative description of how government is supposed to be constituted"? Replace the word "government" with the word "burrito", you'd have an equally grammatically-correct article; so would an article on "good burrito" be appropriate? As nom said, any noun can be combined with the word "good". A redirect to Good governance is just encouraging lazy article-writing like this; the latter is already suspiciously broad, but can at least claim a few scholarly references. Not worth our time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Good governance -- My initial reaction was to merge, but there's nothing here worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Instagram reels[edit]

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

While there is potential for an article here, there is no reliable source to verify that the list is constituted by the absolute top most viewed reels (as opposed to "some of the most-viewed" mentioned in the sources). Unless that source is added, there is no reason to have an article with no known means to verify it. MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Websites. MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 4 are RS per source tool, rest aren't/are primary. Latest source is almost a year out of date at this point; list would seem to be difficult to manage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify while we look for more and better sources. Being difficult to manage never stopped us from having other articles on lists that keep changing. The topic itself seems encyclopedic. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did draftify this article before, but the creator moved it back to mainspace (which is allowed by WP:DRAFTOBJECT). Also note that the problem is not that the list is changing, but that there are no current sources to verify the most viewed reels. Sources in the article seem to be arbitrary samples of "some of the most-viewed", and not a definitive ranking. MarioGom (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with OwenX. The article is very much not ready for mainspace, and is only a couple days old. It may even need a rename to something like List of highly-viewed Instagram reels depending on how it develops. —siro χ o 00:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Freinland (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been improved, references added, [[22]]--Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reference still does not list what are the most-viewed Instagram reels. MarioGom (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This appears to be perfectly plausible article topic (per: List of most-liked Instagram posts, List of most-followed Facebook pages, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most-followed TikTok accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-streamed artists on Spotify, List of Spotify streaming records, List of most-followed Twitch channels, etc., plus other equivalents of a "best-seller" list for more traditional media). But it clearly needs sourcing work, including both more reliable material and more recent. I wouldn't worry about someone randomly moving it back to mainspace before it is ready, if there's an AfD result saying to draftify until we're certain it is mainspace-worthy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as it is currently written. Draftify this for the time being so interested editors can improve it. User:Let'srun 17:55, 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 redirect‎ to Dextromethorphan. Star Mississippi 15:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delsym[edit]

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

Brand name for dextromethorphan. Signal to noise ratio for finding sources is bad, but I can't find any material for the brand or trade name specifically. The single cited source is also not significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dextromethorphan, as is done for most medical front-facing brand names; the side effects are not confined to just the brand name's formulation and seemed to be used to hit some mythical word count. Nate • (chatter) 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dextromethorphan: per MrSchimpf. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To the generic same as suggested. Nothing notable about this brand alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor2Door[edit]

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

It does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Websites. MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while not more than a stub at this point, coverage by WRIC, Bitcoin.com News and others suggest notability. There is also academic literature coverage, likely with more information. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some limited coverage for this "thing" [23] and [24] but I don't think it's enough for sourcing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Tor2Door" article should be removed from Wikipedia because it details an illegal darknet market, potentially promoting unethical activities. This content conflicts with Wikipedia's commitment to responsible and ethical information sharing. --Loewstisch (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Risk[edit]

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

Promotional material since creation by an old account with no edits outside of this article, ANZIIF and the IPA. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. The three non primary sources in article don't appear sufficient - sources 9 and 10 are routine coverage about an award, source 11 is paywalled. Google and news search turns up nothing. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from knowing various risk factors, I can't find sourcing for this subject. Agree with the sources as described, most are PROMO or primary. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NPRODUCT. Owen× ☎ 16:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional spam Wolfson5 (talk) 21:07, 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. ✗plicit 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm concerned that most of the sources listed here don't seem independent enough to unoquivically verify this fund's notability. Tech in Asia (TiA) dominates the reference list. However, WP's entry about TiA isn't in good standing but more importantly can Singaporean sources, specifically those that focus on business and tech be considered independent by WP's standards. Media censorship in Singapore says, "Instead of subscribing to the Western press model, it (Singapore) believes that a non-adversarial press can report accurately and objectively." So can a media outlet that's subject to state restrctions be considered independent? Then there's pieces like this KR-Asia profile https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing which appears to be a repackaged press release with little or no editorial oversight. Judging by the page's maintenance tags and source list I think a discussion about this subject's notability is needed.~ 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDX420, thank you so much for these inputs.

Duly noted your concerns about the coverages. I have removed the sources you mentioned, and will promptly replace them based on your comments.

From what I see, ACV is one of the reputable VCs in SEA, and they do have coverages from other reputable media aside from TiA, KrAsia.

I will revise the article accordingly, and then we can revisit this discussion again. 182.2.147.248 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGX420, I have revised the article to be neutral in tone and replaced most of the links with more authoritative ones from a diverse source of websites. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. Further feedback is welcomed! Loxy Monster (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.techinasia.com/top-venture-capital-southeast-asia	Questions over Singaporean publication's independence	? No	~ Appears to be a listicle	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ My understanding is that companies pay to get featured in TC.	~ My understanding is TC can support some facts but isn't considered reliable enough to support notability.	The article is about the fund.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2023/03/24/executive-column-ac-ventures-says-founders-must-keep-innovating-despite-tech-winter.html	It's an interview	? No consensus at WP:RSN	? Paywalled	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/07/04/indonesias-pina-raises-3m-seed-funding-led-by-ac-ventures-vibe-vc-and-y-combinator/	"Serving users through software versus relationship managers allows PINA to provide holistic financial advice without steep fees and account minimums." Doesn't sound like independent journalism to me.	It looks like another press release aggregator.	It's not about AC Venture it's about PINA	✘ No
https://technode.global/2023/01/31/indonesias-edenfarm-raises-13-5m-funding-led-by-tmi-appworks-ac-ventures/	Routine press coverage	Rehashed press release with little or no editorial oversight	It's not about the subject, it's about a company that they funded	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-13/vc-who-backed-carsome-raising-250-million-for-early-stage-fund	It's not a Bloomberg editorial	~ Might be reliable to an extent but, is it reliable enough to support notability?	? Paywalled	✘ No
https://www.idnfinancials.com/archive/40823/ula-secures-investments-tencent-jeff-bezoss	Press Release	No consensus but I doubt it.	Press release with little to no editorial oversight.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/agaeti-convergence-merger	Non independent per my hypothesis in my nomination.	? To my knowledge there hasn't been enough on-Wiki discussion about this sources reliablity to determine whether it is reliable or not.	It's clearly about the fund	✘ No
https://acv.vc/ac_team/pandu-sjahrir/	It's the fund's website so there may also be a WP:ELNO issue here that needs looking into.	~ Primary sources are reliable up to a point in that one can verify who their CEO is by looking at the website, the same way as one can verify that the sun exists by looking at it but that's not anout to verify notability.	~ It's more about the CEO really	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See my hypothesis in my nom	? Not enough discussion on this source's reliability but some discussion on Singapore's press' independence (or lack of).	It seems to be about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://finansial.bisnis.com/read/20210607/563/1402268/pandu-sjahrir-jadi-ketua-asosiasi-fintech-ini-rekam-jejaknya	Blog site	Blog site	Again it seems to be about the CEO and not the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See nom	See nom	Not about the fund	✘ No
https://www.fortuneidn.com/news/bonardo/fortune-indonesia-40-under-40-dari-gibran-hingga-reza-rahadian	To my knowledge the publication has a reputation for editorial standards.	I haven't checked WP:RSP but one would assume that Fortune is reliable	Again it's about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/11/ac-ventures-announces-the-first-close-of-its-80-million-fund-for-indonesian-startups/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/30/indonesia-focused-ac-ventures-closes-oversubscribed-205m-third-fund/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement largely based on interviews with staff.	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/02/14/indonesias-ac-ventures-appoints-venture-capital-veteran-helen-wong-as-senior-advisor-and-venture-partner/	Press release aggregator	Press release aggregator	Another routine press announcement	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/helen-wong-ac-ventures-venture-partner	See nom	See nom	Bears a striking resemblence to press releases at the time and appears to be a routine press announcement.	✘ No
https://forbesasia100towatch.com/people/helen-wong/	Paid profile	Published with little to no editorial oversight	Brieft bio	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It looks like most of it is based on an interview and the subject's media prospectus with little in the way of independent analysis.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/13/waste4change-is-building-a-circular-economy-in-indonesia/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/19/with-37m-seed-round-maka-motors-begins-ev-pilot-on-indonesias-streets/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-leads-agritech-firm-koltiva	See nom	See nom	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://asiatechdaily.com/indonesian-vc-firm-convergence-ventures/	Blog	Blog	Not about the subject in question	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	See nom	See nom	Not much in the way of independent analysis or critical thought here.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	It's a national newspaper	It's a national newspaper	Doesn't appear to be about the subject in question.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	It's about data provided by the fund but not the actual fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	Looks like a PR whitewash and not independent journalism	? To my knowledge there's not been enough on-wiki discussion to reach a consensus on this source's reliability	Is something that's based on interviews and a press release with little to no independent coverage significant? I don't thinks so.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table and the overly-PRish tone in most sources, I'm not seeing notability. I can't find any sort of sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"DealStreet Asia" and fancily-named sites that just reprint PR items are about the extent of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the source analysis, nothing I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston Players[edit]

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

Unreferenced promotional stub for a company that fails WP:GNG. The creator of the article is also very clearly associated with the company, considering their username is identical to the article's title. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Australia. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in Trove. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the lines promoting a modern production and its quality as presumably contributed by the creator of article, but added a range of history sources and sites highlighting the output of the organisation. RossRSmith (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written and neglected article, but this is apparently the oldest still-operating amateur theatre group in Australia. It is covered in an academic journal article and the many news articles listed on their AusStage entry (which is only older articles stored on Trove, not comprehensive) show sufficient coverage for notability. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kladara[edit]

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

PROD objected with non-SIGCOV sources (only mentions). Still cannot find coverage on the subject. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Bulgaria. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS nor Google News. dxneo (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mentions of the term in old Croatian texts in Gbooks, nothing substantial found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 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 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 13:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B612 (app)[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MarioGom (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides this [25], I can't find reviews of the app. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 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 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 13:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suika2[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Software, and Japan. MarioGom (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the absence of independent and reliable coverage. It's currently only software pages and GitHub updates. I'm also mindful of the potential for notability to be established under WP:NONENG sources, but don't see anything. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Central neurocytoma. ✗plicit 13:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neurocytoma[edit]

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

central neurocytoma is notable and has plenty of coverage, but neurocytoma is just a WP:DICDEF which already has a wiktionary entry. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central neurocytoma: unless newly found sources can establish independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central neurocytoma: This article doesn't add anything beyond the central neurocytoma article. If anything, it leads to confusion regarding whether it is a synonym or something different. Mgp28 (talk) 21:08, 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 Metronidazole. ✗plicit 13:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noritate[edit]

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

Brand name for metronidazole. I have added it there and it does not deserve its own article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to metronidazole, as we do with all other drug articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metronidazole: and change ...sold under the brand name Flagyl to ...sold under the brand name Flagyl or Noritate in the target. Owen× ☎ 15:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metronidazole. I note that the Metronidazole article has a whole section of brand names so I don't think we necessarily need to list this one in the lead. Mgp28 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Svätojánsky[edit]

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

I searched news coverage about this athlete, even in Slovak, but did not seem to find anything that meets WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. SK Wikipedia article is likewise entirely unsourced except external links, which might help copy over on English Wikipedia if it wasn't. Google search results also almost come exclusively from blogs and no other notable activities on his own. Overall, he does not have apparent notability. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any coverage outside of self-published media Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Henry Rowan. (Note this is a 'soft-redirect' due to low participation, following the same principles of soft-deletes.) Daniel (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inductotherm Group[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Henry Rowan as the company does not appear to have independent notability, but its founder does. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering seafood by hand[edit]

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

The article appears a combination of original research and lacking inline citations, except for its historical statement (which is also included and identically sourced at Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering). The title is phrased like a sentence, and is not used in its sources, making me believe a page move is necessary even if not deleted, but I don't know what the moved name would be. While particular types of hand gathering have their own articles which are listed at Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering, it is not clear if the umbrella topic of hand gathering seafood specifically is a notable grouping justifying its own article. If there were reliable sources reviewing the history of all or many hand fishing techniques together historically, then maybe this topic would be notable, but I cannot find such sources by a handful of google scholar searches. It is possible that sources for such a review may exist but are not easily accessible online.

My current recommendation is to blank and redirect to Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering as this section already covers the sourced historical statement and links in summary style to types of hand-gathering. There seems no other content to salvage and the proposed redirect would better organise the information in its existing summary style. Since this is possibly a controversial move and the talk page is inactive, I believe AfD is the most appropriate forum for establishing consensus first. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly is a thing but the page is not encyclopedic and the concepts are better covered elsewhere. JMWt (talk)
Delete: Already covered in other articles and appears to be (a rather short) essay. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed with nominator and prior !voters in all respects, particularly blanking and adding any remaining content to Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering. I've had this on my "I'll do an AFD on this someday" list for a while. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to Fishing techniques#Hand-gathering -- There is no independent notability that makes this a separate, encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aformic[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article presenting a recent company's product range and industry fair appearances. These and their coverage are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. There is no article on the Polish AIUT parent company which could serve as an ATD target, though the WP:SPA article creator has also created a draft here. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Space dock#Star Trek. Daniel (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Spacedock[edit]

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

Cool but niche concept from Star Trek. Our article is sadly just a plot summary with some WP:SIGCOV failing development history, no reception or analysis. BEFORE gives me nothing ([26]/ia mirror is just one sentence of plot summary again, sourced to Memory Beta - that's hardly scholary work... sigh). No idea where to redirect this, but if possible, redirects>hard deletion - ideas appreciated. Maybe this will become notable one day... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock I guess. This does appear briefly here or there in secondary sources. At that target there's already a bit of background, and that could also accomodate some more commentary like "Earth Spacedock is one of the more stunning visuals in all of Star Trek". As an alternatively target it appears in Space dock#Star Trek. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Technology in Star Trek per nom. This does not seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Space dock#Star Trek (Daranios' second suggestion). My argument here is that the term "Earth Spacedock" sounds like a generic space scifi term, so taking the reader to a section on the broader page makes sense. —siro χ o 03:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Space dock#Star Trek - I agree with Siroxo's reasoning here. The term "Earth Spacedock" is a generic enough sounding name that the broader target makes sense as the target. Rorshacma (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Space dock#Star Trek would indeed be the wisest idea, since it clearly states the fictional world this space dock belongs to. TH1980 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cypres[edit]

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

Not enough sources found to justify a stand-alone article. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to automatic activation device. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a merge to Automatic activation device is DUE, as there's only a table entry there right now. There's a good deal of short coverage [27][28], but I'm not seeing enough in the WP:PRODUCTREV style for an independent article. Redirect should probably be categorized ((r with possibilities)). —siro χ o 08:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than merge. There seems to be a couple mentions of this product in the automatic activation device, and I wouldn't put anything more in there other than some references that verify its existence like the ones linked above. Searching for other sources doesn't yield anything new. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xab Pagri[edit]

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

Like Xabbatog: all I can find is a single brief mention in one book, which suggests this is not notable enough for its own article (hence why, after a decade, the article is still just one sentence long). Merging this to Tibetan cuisine or List of Tibetan dishes is possible, but it's not clear that this dish or xabbatog actually exists (at least under anything like these names). I have not checked whether more entries like these two were also created by the same user. -sche (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Like Xabbatog, there are no sources for this that I can find. Every mention appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. When there is a dish that doesn't even have online recipes, I am extremely sceptical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xabbatog[edit]

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

All I can find is a single brief mention in one book, which suggests this is not notable enough for its own article (hence why, after a decade, the article is still just one sentence long), and indeed suggests that xabbatog may not even be real. (This came up on Wiktionary's Requests for Verification page, where we couldn't find evidence that it was real.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xab Pagri. -sche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's quite possible this is real, but the only source is published by the Chinese government. Which still doesn't mean this isn't real, but we need better sources for pretty much anything written by China about Tibet. I couldn't find much else that I could rule out having been taken from WP, couldn't even find a recipe in English. It's possible that someone who reads Tibetan would be able to find some recipes, which would at least prove this dish is real. Foods from small countries without a history of food journalism or academic study are very difficult, especially when we're dealing with transliteration, which is why I would prefer to userfy. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There are no sources for this that I can find. Every mention appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. When there is a dish that doesn't even have online recipes, I am extremely sceptical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 AFC Champions League knockout stage[edit]

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

This is a contested draftification. This article cites no sources, and a quick check before the nomination did not reveal any sources that covered the knockout stages of the tournament in particular, meaning that the subject of this article is not notable. I'd recommend a merge or redirect to one of the larger articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Asia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for ChampsRT, who moved the page back into mainspace. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. I oppose a merge/redirect on the simple reason that knockout stage articles for prior AFC Champions League seasons have their own article. This subject is notable, though it may be slightly WP:TOOSOON based on a lack of SIGCOV. It is reasonably expected more SIGCOV will be available after more teams qualify and after the teams are drawn. Frank Anchor 01:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent to a draftification, but keeping on the argument of "knockout stage articles for prior AFC Champions League seasons have their own article" is quite a clear WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'll also note that the sourcing on the other articles seems to be very poor as well — see the articles for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 seasons, for example. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I said it is likely to be notable in the future though possibly too soon now, hence my preference to draftify rather than merge. Frank Anchor 02:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I didn't provide the articles above as past examples of the knockout stages becoming notable; quite the opposite. Those three are almost entirely supported by primary sources, which don't demonstrate the subject's notability. In fact, if I'd known about the other years' articles before, I might even have bundled them in when I made this nomination. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous competition as an example 2022 AFC Champions League, I think part of the issue is that if the subsidiary articles which have the individual match details (qualifying play-offs, group stage, knockout stage, final) were all merged into the primary article then it would be too large and unwieldy. So its not just about the notability of the individual stage of a competition that overall is definitely notable. Perhaps the merging issue should be discussed more generally at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football forum? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it was started WP:TOOSOON, but the article should get a lot of attention and expansion over the next couple of weeks with the conclusion of the group stage, and the Draw for the knockout stages. There should be plenty of primary and secondary references by then. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify it's a bit too soon, but quite clearly will be notable enough as a main stage of a continental competition. --SuperJew (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page will be recreated in two second anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common practice to have these articles, however it does lack sourcing, like 2022 AFC Champions League knockout stage, which is heavily under-sourced, so it's not to say there are issues. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, Govvy, Matilda Maniac, Ortizesp, and SuperJew: I'd invite you to articulate your rationales for keeping in terms of a policy or guideline. I still haven't seen anyone dispute the claim that the subject of the article is not notable that I made in my nomination statement; in fact, some editors have linked to the Too soon essay, which actually supports my rationale for action due to the lack of significant coverage. Also, by looking at the state of the references in previous years' articles, I don't see a great track record of the knockout stages becoming notable; I'll also note that I didn't find any useful references for previous years when conducting a search before this nomination. With all that in mind, why do you think that enough sources will exist in the future to demonstrate notability? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about, there are loads online for the AFC Champions League, the knock-out stage is two months away. The article is just following the standard editing procedure. You really should just withdraw this nomination and stop wasting everyones time. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do make some valid points, Mr. Squirrel. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy and Matilda Maniac: I can assure you that I don't intend to waste anyone's time. If you think I'm wrong, would you do me the courtesy of showing me why I'm wrong rather than being rude? To be clear, I'm not disputing the notability of the AFC Champions League — I found plenty of sources for that — only the knockout rounds specifically. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per Matilda Maniac. Agree that it was started too soon, but are we really doubting the notability of the knockout stage round for the premier continental football competition in Asia? Poor sourcing is one thing, but that can be improved. As Matilda Maniac mentioned, these types of articles act as content forks via WP:SPINOFF. The main reason we do that is to keep the match details, which are often notable though excessively detailed, in its own article rather than have everything on the main article where it would be undue, which is a valid type of content forking. As far as the actual content is concerned at the moment, I see the argument to merge or redirect, but I don't see an issue with the notability of the subject itself. Jay eyem (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadica Stojanova[edit]

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

The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. JTtheOG (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her Macedonian Wikipedia article is very short, no major changes since its creation in 2021. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan MAC Trophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent and significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Basketball, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "football rivalry" aspect of "Directional Michigan" is dealt with separately at Central Michigan–Western Michigan football rivalry and Central Michigan–Eastern Michigan football rivalry. These are legit rivalries that date back over 100 years. This AfD deals with a trophy created in 2005. While the trophy article has received 55,837 page views (showing that viewers have an interest in the topic), a search of Newspapers.com fails to turn up WP:SIGCOV about the trophy. Unless such SIGCOV is found, I'd probably lean "delete". Cbl62 (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minimal SIGCOV on the three-way traveling trophy. However, this topic can be mentioned on the Central-Eastern and Central-Western rivalry pages (as well as a potential Eastern-Western rivalry page if coverage warrants its creation in the future). I would support a redirect or merge since this is a reasonable search term and based on page view stats, but can't think of a good target (I oppose a merge with either of the rivalry pages). Frank Anchor 13:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the significant coverage identified by PK-WIKI below. Frank Anchor 21:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the significant coverage of the three-way trophy in the WP:INDEPENDENT sources below:

In addition to the independent coverage, the rivalry trophy receives regular official coverage from each of the three schools as well:

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources would you say are the WP:THREE best RS? From what I see, all of these articles are either not independent (from the schools or relying on team members quotes themselves) or are routine mentions in routine game recaps. Let'srun (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 newspaper articles above are all WP:INDEPENDENT coverage.

Getting quotes from important people involved in the schools and rivalry does not make independently published third-party coverage in newspapers suddenly not independent. I've been seeing this strange sentiment a lot lately in rivalry deletion discussions.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to the articles from the schools themselves as not being WP:INDEPENDENT, although I'm sure you realize that. I still would like to know which sources provide the most WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per PK-WIKI. Svartner (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Language Academy of Canada[edit]

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

Fails GNG. There’s two CBC articles about a Ukrainian student finding a job at the school but that’s it. Also the page was created by a user with COI. NM 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NM 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NORG, considering the COI issue it could probably be speedy deleted as PROMO. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 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 no consensus‎. I see no consensus here. Maybe the situation will become clearer over time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Qusaya[edit]

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

Typical ONEEVENT. No coverage of person outside of news about his death.The article was previously PRODedd and Prod was removed with comment that person is notable. But there is no significant coverage enough to write a biography. Even the age is nog known. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unless better sources are found, the best ATD I can think of would be to redirect this to the article about the event in which he died (Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes), where his name should be mentioned (unless there is a dedicated list). Please note we have an identical article about his teammate, Hassan Zuaiter, which should be discussed as well (if there are no objections here when this is closed, it can be boldly redirected or PRODed I guess). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a member of the national team is notable independently of death. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual is notable only for WP:ONEEVENT, and fails WP:VICTIM criteria. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded it already a bit. More information can be found on him via his different used names and Arabic. 109.38.139.140 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete as per WP:VICTIM. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He represented Palestine at a major event like the 2022 Asian Games, that is significant enough in itself. --Dominus Moravian (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that he was a member of the national team and likewise has sufficient related sources, therefore we can call it as a notable item. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is being a member of a national team enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1E article, fails GNG, NBIO, meets NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, sources are brief articles about a recent event which mention the subject. No sources show the event will meet WP:LASTING and fails NOTNEWS. // Timothy :: talk 12:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page is not in bad shape and the subject meets GNG, looking for his Arab name there is coverage about him even before his death, eg. this article enterely devoted to him from Saudi newspaper Al Riyadiyah, which recounts his career and describes him as a major star. Cavarrone 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see No consensus here right now among discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the source found by Cavarrone is sufficiently strong to quash 1E concerns. He was clearly notable before his death, though his death acted as a catalyst for the creation of the article. That doesn't remove the notability. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to meet WP:1E or notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. TaBaZzz (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article seems to mix up a volleyball player from Gaza with a Syrian Air Force officer of the same name.Marokwitz (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the article? Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the death is verifiable per WP:V, there should at least be a redirect to the airstrike. There will then be an incoming link from the Asian Games volleyball page, informing that this player perished in the airstrike, without the need of a standalone biographical article. That is, if the state of SIGCOV is not good enough to keep it. If it is kept, throw out the "volleyball players martyred" reference which clearly fails WP:NPOV. Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasi Shanker[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC Cray04 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Cray04 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR, which states: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);", among his films one having received an important award Nararaayam (National Film Award for Best Film on Other Social Issues). Also, sources not currently on the page exist (in English for example, the following): [29], [30] [31] at least. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass WP:DIRECTOR .. he worked more then 3 notable movies Worldiswide (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and pass GNG. Kkb091 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Corporate Counsel[edit]

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

Lacks SIGCOV. NM 04:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of WP:IAR. This is a 40 year-old organization that has branches around the world, has given testimony before the U.S. Congress, files briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, is quoted regularly in books and other scholarly works, and has an annual benchmarking survey that is widely reported. After diligent search there does not, however, appear to be any lengthy description of its activities in an independent source. While it's thus entirely possible to justify the deletion on WP:NORG grounds, this would be one of those occasional exceptions where doing so would not make sense. Oblivy (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Monroe Winter[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles under [[32]]. Holding a (presumably section) position in a professional orchestra and holding a professorship do not on their own qualify, and if the Robert Downey, Jr. event qualifies, it could be placed on the film's Wikipedia page without need for this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticwarp (talk • contribs) 00:54, November 17, 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more legwork since nobody else has commented. Notability with respect to music would require one of 12 points in the linked list from my previous comment. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 would all be easy to find if satisfied. Point 6 requires being a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The first source in the article is titled "Virginia Symphony Welcomes New Musicians : Principal Timpani, Principal Trumpet and Core Violinists Announced", and in general a non-titled chair in an orchestra would not be considered "reasonably prominent." The Richmond Symphony link also just lists him as "violin" without any title. I only see "reasonably prominent" satisfied within the Wintergreen Festival Orchestra, which hasn't merited its own Wiki page. The only point someone could make an argument for here would be point 1's two independent sources, but I would argue the source from Mason News to be trivial, and the source about him tutoring Robert Downey, Jr could just be folded into a different article even if it doesn't qualify as a minor news story that wouldn't grant notability. I also checked Wikipedia's notability standards for academics[[33]], and I can't find any indication this subject satisfies them. --Arcticwarp (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more experienced editors than the nominator who has been active a week and has 9 edits to their account.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I just added a current source from the University of Central Florida, which brings this violin professor's background bio up to date. A basic problem on this article is that the sourcing has been nine years out of date, while the professor himself has continued with his career. There's a lot about him on Google. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing notability for PROF as being met, appears to be simply a working academic/musician. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aberffraw (cantref)[edit]

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

Stub. Unreferenced since 2010; tagged with notability since last year. Can anyone save this or should be redirect this somewhere (where)? My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that obviously screams "this is notable, here's the def". House_of_Aberffraw#Aberffraw_hundred_(cantref) seems related, longer, referenced and a possible redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, United Kingdom, and Wales. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:POPULATED (eg [34] "South Anglesey was ruled from courts at Aberffraw and Llys Rhosyr") A merge by WP:NOPAGE would make sense but I'm really not confident where to. —siro χ o 03:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aberffraw#Aberffraw cantref (hundred) for now; as ATD, unless the article is subsequently improved like Cantref Arfon and therefore change to keep then. Dank Jae 09:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found some references to Aberffraw as a cantref specifically so that's at least one issue down. Also from what I found, the larger Aberffraw article isn't correct as there were references to it as a cantref at least 200 years prior. Kazamzam (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you added is from 18th century. As for the second, I don't see how it meets WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with an 18th century source for 14th century history? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old sources are not very reliable. The name or definitions might have changed. It seems I am in minority, but I'd like to see a modern-era SIGCOV treatment of this entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantref Arfon. The RCAHMW confirms the existence and approximate borders of the Aberffraw cantref.[35] Google Books and Google Scholar show multiple likely sources, and many of the sources cited in Cantref are likely to also discuss this cantref. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unnecessary deletion as it has historical merit and connects to the House of Aberffraw article which is relevant.Cltjames (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more opinions reviewing recently added sources to see if they are sufficient to Keep this article. If not, it seems like this should be closed as a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source by Henry Rowlands checks out, and is still cited by 21st century scholarship such as Longley 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLongley2009 (help) which adds a couple of facts but should probably be read in light of Carr 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr2011 (help) when it comes to LLifon in 1284. There's probably enough here, and more to say, although the redlinking of the commotes is over-optimistic, I think. It's those that should probably be redirects, to this article. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Longley, David (2009). "Gwynedd before and after the Conquest". In Williams, Diane; Kenyon, John R. (eds.). The Impact of the Edwardian Castles in Wales. Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782973676.
- Carr, A. D. (2011). "Jones Pierce Revisited: The evidence of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century extents". In Griffiths, Ralph A.; Schofield, Phillipp R. (eds.). Wales and the Welsh in the Middle Ages. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708324479.
Keep Sufficient sources have been found. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed position from above), sufficient sources found. Dank Jae 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator Amir[edit]

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

Fails NBIO and GNG Sources cited here and other sources I have found are all routine coverage or tabloid-style celebrity reporting. The "Education background" and "Career" sections are completely uncited. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Uganda. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del promo of a "talent manager" with no neutral coverage. - Altenmann >talk 03:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten to cite but following this comment, I have done so please and thank you for your guidance and assistance, I appreciate your help and guideline. Mwakwe256 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, all I can find online about him is gossip and blogs. Pulse.ug and MBU.ug seem to specialise in promoting B-list celebs in Uganda, and neither site appears to be a WP:RS, with no editorial team named for oversight, etc. Wikishovel (talk) 09:17, 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 sole "keep" !vote amounts to nothing beyond WP:VAGUEWAVE. ✗plicit 02:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazeem Ojo Aderounmu[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indicatoin of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Of all of the references, all are database entries except 1 which is an interview. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del also fails WP:NSPORT. - Altenmann >talk 03:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Nigeria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG Respublik (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hose[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. Other than descriptions by employers, there are zero even half GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del no independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Mainly primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Chaves[edit]

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

Reviewd during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The references are only database type entries. The content is only data base type factoids. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del minor league player, no significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ali I of Shirvan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Shirvanshah[edit]

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

Although I created this article years ago, I know acknowledge that it is not an encyclopedic article and should be deleted. Cavidaga (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand a bit on your reasoning why you would call the execution of this royal not relevant? Axisstroke (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing as "relevant" to consider in deletion discussions. Please read the guideline. - Altenmann >talk 02:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge to his father, Ali I of Shirvan. Lacks significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:24, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chișinău explosion[edit]

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

The topic of this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. Brief bursts of news coverage. Быбеан (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del no lasting significance. - Altenmann >talk 02:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NEVENT/WP:NCRIME. This falls very squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's every mention I could find after the immediate event. I don't think this coverage warrants (a few significant mentions and one in depth full article in 2020) its own article but I think ideally it should be a brief footnote somewhere. However I can't think of any redirect target.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:05, 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 keep‎. We have hundreds of articles on TV shows that didn't air in majority English-speaking countries. That is not a valid reason to delete and the consensus in the discussion is that sources are adequate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Restaurant[edit]

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

An Israeli Reality TV show that only aired in Israel and not anywhere in the world. This article have no encyclopedic importance in the English Wikipedia. Your opinions? זור987 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Only in Israel" is not a valid reason for deletion. The language of a broadcast program is also not a reason for deletion. The article appears to be adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: I see no multiple independent coverage: all refs but one are press releases. he-wiki has the same problem. - Altenmann >talk 02:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST, it's all about sources. Not about references. But even if looking ONLY at references, Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record. Yediot Ahronot is Israel's most-read paid newspaper. In terms of source independency, in Israel, it can't get much better than that! gidonb (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of the WP:GNG. Also speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. I believe I can hold and express both opinions as these culminate in the same result. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid case for a deletion has been made. English Wikipedia is not restricted to topics relevant to English-speaking people, just like Hebrew Wikipedia isn't restricted to topics relevant to Israelis or Hebrew speakers. OP appears to misunderstand how significance applies across the different Wikipedias. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 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.

Ecole Mondiale World School, Juhu[edit]

The result was Speedy redirect‎. Non-controversial action. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Is a duplicate of École Mondiale World School with no information worth transferring over Nswix (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Nswix (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - Altenmann >talk 02:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Should have been done so as an ordinary noncontroversial editing act without bothering wider4 community. - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Pond Model Yacht Club[edit]

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

NORG fail. No non-primary source coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Fermiboson (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, this is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Not enough sourcing to meet NORG — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable and even unimportant. - Altenmann >talk 02:57, 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.