The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation[edit]

Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable charitable foundation. PepperBeast (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. PepperBeast (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it exists in Google Trends. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "exists in Google Trends" is a rational not clearly grounded grounded in the notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to find anything suggesting this subject passes WP:NCORP, and the sourcing currently present within the article isn't enough. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1 gnews hit says it all. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Air Force[edit]

Kosovo Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Plain and simple, this is not a real organization. The vast majority of the references in this text are either 1.) unrelated to the subject of any military air assets in Kosovo, 2.) SELFPUB that make no direct mention of a "Kosovo Air Force" (and are apparently authored by the editor behind this article), or 3.) are citations to Wikipedia itself. Altogether, this might even qualify as a WP:HOAX. For this reason, I don't see it as a suitable merge/redirect candidate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Europe, and Kosovo. Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Kosovo does not have an independent air force. A Google search of "Forca Ajrore e Kosoves" gives no results confirming that the name is in use, so I think it's safe to say that this is a hoax. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have sometimes commented on an article that I have seen hoaxes that are better referenced, This is one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Keep anything that is verifiably true and rename to Aviation units of the Kosovo military. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no precedent for this sort of article. There is no verifiable information that suggests that the aviation assets are organized into any independently administered units. Relevant material regarding some aerial assets in the Kosovar military are addressed in Kosovo Security Force. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense to split off the entire "Equipment" section if the article became too large, but I'm not sure it's reached that point yet. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is correct, no false information and all references are verified! I don’t suggest this article to be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.179.31.65 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give us an example of a reliable source that states that there is a branch of the KSF called the "Kosovo Air Force" or "Forca Ajrore e Kosoves"? Just one source will do. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an independent air force doesn't seem to exist, anything equipment acquisitions not already in the can be added to the Kosovo Security Force article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources given and the logo purportedly uploaded by the Defense Ministry appears to be a badly done MS Paint job. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Also noting that the image for "Batllava Airport" is actually of Toledo Express Airport of Toledo, Ohio and the image for Sllatina Underground Airbase is of "Betset airfield" from Israel, per the commons data. While not reasons for deletion per se, they are further evidence just how little this article is based on reality. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterland and Monster Island[edit]

Monsterland and Monster Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't seem to find any sources that really discuss this subject in depth beyond plot summaries of movies it appeared in. The article is currently very poorly sourced, and the situation doesn't seem like it can improve. Not sure on an ATD to this, given it's a very general location, and not really discussed on the series page. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. 99% unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT with no indication of passing WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The current article is basically entirely unsourced, and I am not finding reliable sources for either Monsterland or Monster Island outside of plot summaries of the movies they appeared in. I don't think a redirect would work in this case because not only is there no actual clear target to redirect to, but this would also make a terrible and very implausible search term. Even if someone can recommend a proper target to redirect to, I would still advocate deleting this, and instead having two separate redirect pages, one for "Monsterland" and one for "Monster Island". Rorshacma (talk) 04:48, 28 November 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 minor planets#Main index. as suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

155142 Tenagra[edit]

155142 Tenagra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO; (re-)redirect to list   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and MB: pinging contributors since last redirect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable (or redirect to List of named minor planets: 150000–199999). Shaka, when the walls fell. Praemonitus (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sense in redirecting to a list which should probably be deleted as well. Fram (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a list (either List of named minor planets: 150000-199999 or List of minor planets: 155001-156000#155101–155200) as is customary for minor planets which do not pass WP:NASTRO. 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I think InterstellarGamer12321 meant List of minor planets: 155001–156000#142, per WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I meant, apologies for using the wrong anchor. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of minor planets: 155001–156000#142 per standard procedure. There's no good reason to change this. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:39, 23 November 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 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novyi Korotych post office attack[edit]

Novyi Korotych post office attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wondering if this on it's own article is right. I would assume there is a better article to merge and redirect this too. However I am unsure, I simply don't feel this little bit (stub) need a separate article. The information should be added somewhere else, but I am unsure where. Maybe other participants can suggest a better venue for the content to be and redirected too, hence this nomination. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war, doesn't appear to be more notable than the other hundreds of similar strikes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Post office doesn't appear to be any sort of historical structure needing an article, rather non-descript building, so nothing to merge to... Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Oaktree b: Novyi Korotych, a newish article on the town has a bit about the attack. But You might be right above one of many things hit in an on going war. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war"... with 8 people killed. I guess 8 people killed is now insignificant for some. But for others, each attack on civilian objects with such fatalities should be recorded in history. For reference, Gošić killings also has "only" 8 people killed, and also has its own article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present).  —Michael Z. 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @3E1I5S8B9RF7: I never said it was insignificant, I said the content needed to provided to a better location than the single entry it currently is and Mzajac Provided a better venue (article) to add it too, but having a look, I see it's missing an entry for October 2023. Regards Govvy (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a 1 off missile attack part of a broader war. Does not meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar: Based on WP:PRESERVE, shouldn't the article just be merged to its most likely parent article? Also WP:EVENT says (near the bottom) If the notability of an event is in question but it [...] can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Dan the Animator 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirect & merge into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). For the above deletes: while I agree this article shouldn't be kept, delete should be a last resort option. From going through a lot of the Russo-Ukrainian articles, you'd be surprised how many would benefit from mergers of these sorts of things, even if just a sentence or two. Leaving a redirect is a perfectly reasonable, common-place thing to do, and for an attack with casualties, I don't see any reason why not to leave one. Best, Dan the Animator 06:07, 25 November 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 Arms (video game). Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Min Min (character)[edit]

Min Min (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is one I had to look at deeply, but in all honesty it fails SIGCOV and notability. All the coverage is minor quotes and no real in-depth analysis or discussion outside of possibly Gavin Jasper's statement, and not much indication why Min-Min is any more important than another other character from ARMS, let alone notable as a fictional character.

Trying to find additional sources discussing the subject turned out fruitless also, outside of a lot of articles mentioning she exists. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: While there are additional sources in the previous AfD, I will argue that they don't offer enough, as they're isolated to gameplay of that particular Smash Bros. title and not really much even then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article suffers from a common problem in fictional character articles: trying to Voltron a bunch of trivial mentions to make a full article. This and this are ones I consider SIGCOV, so it does get close, but IMO does not pass it - everything else is trivial (i.e. a simple announcement) or primary, or from a content farm website that doesn't count towards notability per consensus. I certainly think a List of Arms (video game) characters would work well, but this character alone? Not really happening. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Exactly as Zxcvbnm said, the sources are a bunch of trivial mentions or quotes cherry picked out of general reviews of the game, basically being used as a WP:REFBOMB to give the illusion of genuine significant coverage. I would also have no objection to using this as a Redirect to Arms (video game), if other editors would prefer. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with the verdict of the previous AFD. Not to mention, there's been more added since. Even if we're not counting the CBR and Screen Rant sources, the character had her own review, base on her appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, by IGN, which is cited in the article. Then there's the Destructoid and Kotaku article which goes more in-depth on her inclusion in the game too. Surely, these give indication that she's more important than most of the characters from ARMS. MoonJet (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But those are due to being in Smash Bros, and are the same level of commentary any Smash Bros. character received. It doesn't display actual importance or commentary on her, especially when compared to Twintelle, who came from the same games but actively received analysis. It's refbombing with small quotes instead simply because she was in Smash.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But not all the Smash characters received IGN reviews, not even all the DLC characters. Coverage pertaining to her appearance in Smash Ultimate does not and should not negate her notability. These sources pass what we look for in WP:GNG, that being significant coverage. If multiple in-depth articles for her isn't significant coverage, then I don't know what is. MoonJet (talk) 07:48, 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!} 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect per reasons above. Most of the sources at reception were weak. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Though I stand by my keep arguments above (especially considering the fact no list article for the ARMs characters exist, meaning there's nowhere to even merge the important information to), I would settle on a redirect to Arms (video game), rather than a delete, as a plausible search term. MoonJet (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm not seeing a strong rebuttal to the provided sources. An individual is not required to pass topic-specific guidelines if they clear GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra al-Tawil[edit]

Bushra al-Tawil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating this page for deletion as it does not fall under WP:N guidelines, especially as a biography of a living person. None of the following information that the article presents is significanct to warrant an entire wikipedia article dedicated to this living person:

1. She is a journalist and human rights activist - her contributions to the field to do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST.
2. Her father and husband are Hamas terrorists who have spent time in prison - neither are relevant to her notability as per WP:INVALIDBIO.
3. She has been arrested numerous times - The perpetrator of the crime is not a renowned national nor international figure, and the motive of her crimes (although poorly documented) is unlikely to be unusual. Therefore this is also not satisfactory under WP:CRIMINAL.

Given the article cannot establish her notability, I am suggesting that this article be deleted until (if) she does something noteworthy. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails to pass the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Palestine. UtherSRG (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no coverage for her in Gnews, beyond being moved to "administrative detention", which seems to happen far too often, implying it's not really a sign of notability here as it's commonplace... Still a sad situation, but nothing needing an article here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Try searching Google News for Jordan (google.jo). Sometimes Google News returns country specific (.com vs. .jo) and/or language specific results: [1]

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination focuses on all the wrong things here. The notability for this biography is clearly based on WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED, rather than a particular vocation - news hits for the individual are prolific and span many years, as is plain from even a brief search. The nominator's POV language, "Hamas terrorists", and evident fixation on this page, having previously nominated the page for deletion when not EC (resulting in a procedural close), before diving right back into an AfD nomination after passing the 500/30 mark, do not inspire confidence here at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly pointed out, the previous nomination resulted in a procedural close. The validity of the AfD nomination did not play a role in its closure.

Please refrain from personal attacks by claiming I have some "fixation" on the page or disparaging my edit count. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I merely stated fact: you returned here immediately post-500 edits. And while the validity of your arguments may not have played a role in the previous close, your opening statement here is clearly not neutral, per MOS:TERRORIST, but leans on a POV. Are other editors meant to turn a blind eye to this? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fact contribute to the discussion? My edit count and EC status are not relevant to Bushra al-Tawil's notability. Dazzling4 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Hamas terrorist" is also irrelevant to this discussion since talk pages are not subject to NPOV. Not to mention that the source used to include her family in Bushra al-Tawil#Family describes Hamas as a "terror group." Dazzling4 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Worth noting that this page currently exists in five languages on Wikipedia. The subject has a profile on Addameer in Arabic, and there is generally voluminous coverage in Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage by CFWIJ and Reporters Without Borders, now added to article. PamD 08:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The only reason to not keep this article would be if there is another article suitable to merge it into? But i would prefer to keep Palestine related topics separate (unmerged) in case they end up expanding rapidly in the near future. Irtapil (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keeping articles around in case the subject becomes notable in the future is not Wikipedia policy. Dazzling4 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CRYSTAL. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it can be merged into Palestinian prisoners in Israel? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: After reviewing the arguments and the subject's coverage, it seems clear that Bushra al-Tawil's notability hinges primarily on her detentions, aligning with the concept of One-event notability. This principle suggests that if a person or entity is notable for only one event (or in this case a series of detentions), they may not merit a standalone article. In this case, the references to al-Tawil predominantly focus on her detentions, with minimal coverage about other aspects of her life or contributions. Furthermore, the main source of information about her, the 'Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network', does not qualify as an independent WP:RS. Notability on Wikipedia is not inherited by virtue of being covered in multiple languages or having transient news coverage. It requires sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage by reliable sources, as outlined in WP:SIGCOV.

I also noticed that at the end of September 2023, Israel was holding 1,310 people in administrative detention, based on [2], so being detained seems to be relatively common. Marokwitz (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how exactly are repeated arrests of a journalist, spaced over a course of more than 10 years, constitute only "one event"? We have multiple sources giving her WP:SIGCOV over a period of more than 10 years. And even if you're right, then isn't that cause to keep this article and move it to Arrests of Bushra al-Tawil? VR _talk 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her arrests are covered in Palestinian prisoners in Israel. But, other than being arrested and released multiple times, she doesn't seem much different from many other people. No evidence of notable journalism works; It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented. If she was a notable person, then surely reliable sources would cover such basic things? That's what 'significant coverage' requires. Marokwitz (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented." - welcome to the Israeli justice system and the wonderful world of administrative detention. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She had a trial in 2011 and was then sentenced again by a court in 2015, so there was at least some judicial process here . Marokwitz (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She served in Israeli prison, is the daughter of a senior Hamas member... I don't see what else is notable... I do agree that its best she be merged into another article. How about the Palestinian prisoners in Israel ? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is already covered there. Marokwitz (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At best, there is nothing more than WP:1E notability. I'd suggest merge but this article violates NPOV with heavily biased and unreliable sources used that it would require a complete rewrite anyway. The sources cited are all about the one event or non-reliable (except for [3] which is a passing mention in an article about her father's arrest as a terrorist). Thmymerc (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - definitely not 1E, with coverage of her arrests in 2019 and 2020. There is extensive coverage in Arabic in al-Jazeera, al Araby al Jadeed, and el-Watan, and with further coverage by Reporters Without Borders and Coalition For Women In Journalism clears GNG easily. nableezy - 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, she is one of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, so her detentions are not notable. Second, her being the son of a senior Hamas leader, a relationship that has led to coverage of her detentions, is WP:INHERITED. Third, entries in Adameer and Samidoun, advocacy groups and not RS, are irrelevant for establishing notability. Fourth, most of the Arabic-language coverage cited above is also based on who her father is. Longhornsg (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is determined by sourcing, not by how many Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons. And no, the Arabic sources are about her, which anybody who even uses google translate can see. That also is not what WP:INHERITED means, what that means is by itself being related, either a person or a topic, to some notable person does not make one notable, but where the sources cover that individual that gives them their own notability. Addameer is certainly a reliable source, widely cited by other reliable sources. nableezy - 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you on Addameer. It's an advocacy organization. Though I guess, then you'd agree that the ADL, AJC, UN Watch, et al are RS as well, as they are widely cited in other RS. But this is prob not the place for this discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ADL is widely cited on WP. Those other groups are not treated as reliable by other sources, so we should not either. Pretending like Addameer is treated like UN Watch is silly, and a basic association fallacy to boot. Each of these things are evaluated on their own merits, not based on some random person on the internet saying "it's an advocacy organization". So is Amnesty International, and that too is reliable. nableezy - 22:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hundreds of mentions in the press at least from 2014 to now. Use the spelling "Bushra al-Taweel" to find many things that "Bushra al-Tawil" misses. Zero^talk 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there's actually more under that spelling. Good spot! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is/are diverse vast news/info/sites on the internet which can indicate her notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above, there is coverage. Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I've ignored the potential sock puppetry and canvassing, but what's left is a growing opinion that there are sufficient sources to improve the article, and therefore it shouldn't be deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Porter[edit]

Kim Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced biography that has been bouncing back and forth from a stub without sources to a redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. At best, return to a redirect to Sean Combs#Family and protect. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Refs 1, 3, and 7 are solid, I'm not sure what the issue is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When nominated, the article had no sources at all. Question whether the sources added since nom are sufficient for WP:NACTOR and/or WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Changing my response. Im not sure there's enough for WP:ACTOR or even WP:GNG. There are a number of short articles specifically related to her death, and one article about her in a magazine from 2008. I'm not convinced there was enough WP:SIGCOV of her. A lot of tabloid stuff, and mostly just mentioning her because she was dating Sean Combs. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (saw notice at AN). In addition to general sourcing improvements by Melonkelon (her non-Diddy life briefly summarized by AJC), sources of significant coverage include this Essence dual profile (page two) and the Jet cover story. The Source article apparently has more but only offline. These alone suggest notability, but there are also other decent sources to add such as this Atlanta Constitution writeup of Three Brown Girls, this remembrance in Bustle (more than a typical aggregation of social media posts), and this semi-independent profile for Runway magazine. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - This is the first time I've seen someone wanting to out-right delete an article talk page, because they don't like the edits therein. You have the options of (1) Simply delete the edits if you think they are disruptive, or (2) archive the edits. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That said, the Personal life section in the article does not confer any notability on Kim Porter. That leaves the Career section, and there's just no substance there to give her notability. All these instances of "appeared in" could be nothing more than small parts, or walk-ons. This just doesn't look notable to me. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Even setting aside the WP:NOTINHERIT argument, there's just no substance there isn't how notability is assessed: see my comment above, the Jet cover story and Source article in particular. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for your input. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing independent notability from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Weak keep. The Jet magazine spread wasn't loading more than one page for me earlier, which made it seem much less comprehensive than it is. That said, I'm generally hesitant to attribute much weight to celebrity-oriented magazine stories that are based around interviews. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The erasure of Kim's page will play into the narrative that Sean "Diddy" Combs is trying to cover up something nefarious. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a gossip rag. Her page should NOT be deleted as she's a significant figure in the world of Black American celebrities as both a model, a wife/girlfriend, and a mother to children who are now famous themselves. Also, per her status, sources will be media magazines and other smaller publications most likely, which tracks as non A-list ethnic celebrities generally aren't covered by mainstream media. — J (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2023 (EST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chaoticdiva (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Keep. She was a model for decades that turned into acting. Her death was covered by every major publication there is. If necessary it could be an actor/model stub but a complete deletion is not needed. Dam!ta (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dam!ta (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

  I've not canvassed this discussion. I was shocked to see she would even be up for deletion. She's been on the cover or major magazines, an acting career, a notable model. Dam!ta (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A three-month gap of editing to come back and immediately and only !vote here seems questionable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Diddy, Kim Porter have been in the news a lot over the last few weeks. I'm not sure how that's questionable. 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Dam!ta (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hameltion and Dam!ta. I think there is significant, independent and reliable coverage of Porter. She had a cover story and 5-page spread in Jet magazine; both her death and cause of death were covered in major publications like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Essence and The Sydney Morning Herald; she received coverage for her role in co-founding Three Brown Girls and for her roles in film and TV. As Dam!ta mentioned, she had been a model since the 1980s, and had shot a number of ad campaigns. Article should be expanded rather than deleted, as based on what I have read, she was modeling internationally with Wilhelmina Models, so there is likely some more coverage of that time period. As Hameltion mentioned, not all of this coverage is available online; some of the coverage is only available in printed magazines like The Source and Runway Magazine (and she was on the cover of the latter). Melonkelon (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given there are multiple RS to support notability [4] [5], her obituary was published in the NYT, and she had a Jet Magazine cover article from 2008 [6]. This nomination is baffling.--Citrivescence (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how I feel. It's a little baffling that her page is up for deletion. Dam!ta (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG (plenty of focused coverage referenced throughout this discussion, in well-respected publications) and WP:HEY (well done to Melonkelon and the many other editors who contributed sources and edits to this article, which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated). Cielquiparle (talk) 03:49, 29 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar Khola Hawa[edit]

Tomar Khola Hawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:MILL coverage, no claim to notability. Sohom (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least redirect to Shashi_Sumeet_Productions#Soap_operas, where it is mentioned (and add some of the info, and numerous sources quoted in the article.)(but not opposed to Keep, personally)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All sources clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 5:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable television series of this year. Xegma(talk) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that previous AFD decision was to Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 21 November 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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Spender[edit]

Philip Spender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a fundraiser, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. Apart from stating that he exists, the only other attempt at a notability claim here is notable relatives -- but notability is not inherited, so just being related to famous people isn't enough in and of itself. The only sourcing present here, however, is a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-making source.
As I don't have solid access to archived British media coverage beyond what I could find in a simple Google search, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but all I get on Google is more primary sources that aren't support for notability, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, tricky one. We might be able to find WP:BASIC, but I suspect a lot of it will be in offline sources. I'm not sure what the best ATD is right now. Currently has a brief mention at Epistle to a Godson. Could have a mention at Index on Censorship where he's verifiably known to have worked for several years including as director and publisher [7][8][9][10] (some of those are not independent)
  Most other mentions I'm finding right now are pretty trivial. There are a couple sentences of independent coverage here [11], but we'd need a lot more. —siroχo 05:54, 8 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!} 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. There's a broad claim to notability here that is not strictly inherited, and absent a good WP:ATD that can guide readers to the right information, I think I'd lean towards an IAR keep (noting that there is plenty of verifiable info) over a delete that would leave the encyclopedia a bit worse off. There's no single best redirect or merge target. —siroχo 06:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLP requires strong sourcing and the single source in the article is a dead link. siroχo's BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If someone finds SIGCOV about the subject or sourcing and a suitable merge target, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  16:25, 21 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!} 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Many mentions here [12], five hits for the Index on Censorship in Gnewspapers, and this [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And some discussion here [14] Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 22 November 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. A redirect discussion, if needed, can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achdus[edit]

Achdus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An obscure and not notable political party that participated in two elections gaining no seats. Previous version incorrectly stated that it gained three seats in the parliament (which would imply notability), but according to well regarded biographical dictionary of Seimas members, it was another Jewish party that gained three seats. Source: Ragauskas, Aivas; Tamošaitis, Mindaugas, eds. (2007). Lietuvos Respublikos Seimų I (1922–1923), II (1923–1926), III (1926–1927), IV (1936–1940) narių biografinis žodynas. Didysis Lietuvos parlamentarų biografinis žodynas (in Lithuanian). Vol. 3. Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. ISBN 978-9955-20-345-2. Renata•3 03:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it seems that the party was notable, it was part of the parliament. 1922 Lithuanian parliamentary election article clearly says that the party had three MPs. Also later members of this party were on the list of the Minorities Electoral Bloc, so that's why it seems that Achdus didn't have any MPs in 1923 elections, but they had for example Isaak Holcberg. Marcelus (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Achdus did not have 3 seats in the Seimas. That is an error (since 2012!). I fixed one table but not the other. The 3 seats were actually another Jewish party (Zionist group For the Nation and Autonomy). Renata•3 23:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achdus still had their deputies, but as a part of largel minorities bloc Marcelus (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the nomination, it's not clear which parties are being confused. My understanding is that what is being referred to as Achdus in Lithuania, is the Jewish Peoples Party, which was more commonly known by its Yiddish name, Folkspartei and for which we have an article already which covers both Poland and Lithuania. In the 1920 Lithuanian elections, the Jewish parties formed joint electoral tickets, which produced 6 representatives, two of whom were from Folkspartei/JPP/Achdus. In 1923, there was at least one Folskpartei member elected - Ozer Finkelstein. So I would tend towards keep with a focus on the post-WW1 period for this article, although a rename to Jewish People's Party (Lithuania) might be appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Goldsztajn: That's the thing that I can't find any sources to explain what this "Achdus" was or where it came from. It might be misspelled and should read "Achdut". It maybe be related to Agudat Yisrael or World Agudath Israel. The article was created solely based on an erroneous claim that it won 3 seats in 1922 elections. Renata•3 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Renata3 - Achdut (אַחְדוּת) is a Hebrew word, it means unity. Agudat Yisrael/World Agudath Israel are religious political movements, the JPP/Folkspartei was secular. What I can see from is that in the 1920 election there is a braod coalition list including Zionists, religious and non/anti-Zionists - which includes the Folkspartei/JPP who take two seats. In 1922 the JPP contests the election separately and fails to win any seats, whereas the Zionist Group takes 3. This article in Lithuanian covers national minorities in the Lithuanian elections for the period 1920-1926, there's three mentions of Achdus. We need cleanup and discussion on the exact name, but I'm not convinced delete is the appropriate option here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Goldsztajn: I saw the article, but it's of zero help - it just states how many votes were received (based on Lithuanian statistical yearbook) in 1922 and 1923. Renata•3 02:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Hi - @Renata3 - I wouldn't say *zero* help, it clearly shows that Achdus relates to the JPP. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Hmmm ... ok, so looking at this further - I wonder is this JPP-Achdus in 1922 a split from the Folkspartei? @Renata3 Do you have access to candidate lists for the 1922 election? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        @Goldsztajn: according to this (page 3) there were 4 candidates in Kaunas: Nachmanas Rachmilevičius [lt], Ber Šapiro (rabbi), Izakas Golcbergas [lt], Fišelis Beras (merchant). Renata•3 03:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Hi @Renata3 - thanks that very helpful! ok, this is beginning to make sense now, I think! The problem is the inconsistencies regarding the name; I mistakenly accepted at face value the attribution in the article to the JPP. Now that you've sent the newspaper with the candidates it makes more sense and I can see the title as "Jewish Peoples Election Group - Unity". I'm guessing Achdus is a Lithuanian rendering of the Hebrew word (?), which would make sense given the list of candidates you've just provided, who were definitely not from the secular side of politics. I'd now probably lean towards a redirect to Natan Rachmilewitz/Nachmanas Rachmilevičius. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Actually, Issac Golzberg/Izakas Golcbergas might be the better redirect as it seems he's the only person actually to sit in the Seimas under the banner of Achdus. His entry in the Seimas website mentions membership of Achdus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is a consensus on a Redirect, we need to see some agreement on the target article. It would help if participants returned to finish this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see previous reisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 21 November 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!} 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Jealous God[edit]

My Jealous God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

They existed, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; only found 2 brief mentions of their existence. Darling (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I realize that it's more challenging to find good sources for acts that haven't been active since the early nineties, there just isn't enough here to make a case for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:20, 27 November 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!} 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dingbat the Singing Cat[edit]

Dingbat the Singing Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A song with absolutely no notability that I can discern; the only sources online are simple lists of songs or lyric websites with no news, reviews, or anything similar out there that I can find. CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat, Cash Box, and Variety. Those three are plenty enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Added a couple of sources. It was apparently a pop music favorite ca.1946-47. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above, and improved with sources. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. dxneo (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:10, 25 November 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 Texas Longhorns#Facilities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparral Ice[edit]

Chaparral Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N, and I wasn't convinced on any particular merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Texas_Longhorns#Facilities. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Texas_Longhorns#Facilities.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic–Gallaudet rivalry[edit]

Catholic–Gallaudet rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is not a notable rivalry. It's been a totally one-sided series between two lower-level programs in which Catholic has won 21 games to one game for Gallaudet. There are random passing references to a "rivalry" (e.g., here), but nothing in independent, reliable sources that deals with the series in depth -- and certainly no SIGCOV of a "rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Who won more games in it doesn't really matter. For instance, Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich almost every time they raced, yet they are rivals. Sugar Ray Robinson beat Jake LaMotta every time except once, but they are rivals. Mitsuharu Misawa beat Toshiaki Kawada every single time from about 1990-1998, but nobody would say they aren't rivals. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how wrestling, boxing, and bike racing rivals have any relevance here, and there are no stand-alone rivalry articles on those pairings in any event. But my contention is this: Competitiveness isn't determinative by itself, but it absolutely should be one of the factors we consider in deciding whether a series of college football games has risen to the level of a notable rivalry that is worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The depth of SIGCOV is, of course, the most important issue, but in close cases, other attributes may factor into the assessment as well, e.g, competitiveness, geographic proximity (schools with geographic proximity and especially bordering states more likely to generate animosity that makes for a notable rivalry), the existence of a rivalry trophy, frequency of competition (teams that face each other every year are more likely to be rivals). In this case, there is no in-depth coverage of this series as a rivalry, and the other factors support the conclusion that this is not a Wiki-notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the LSU Tigers and Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns have played each other 22 times dating back to 1902, and LSU has won all 22 matches, mostly by huge margins. See here. Despite the geographic proximity within football-crazed Louisiana, the one-sided nature of the series makes it hard for followers to develop a true rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62 - I would personally rank SIGCOV as the most important above all. The problem with competitiveness is results change (see Michigan-Ohio State where Michigan was undefeated early) and with proximity, you get situations like Notre Dame and USC, which are nowhere close to each other. I do also think rivalries in general are partly a media narrative than anything else.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SIGCOV is the paramount touchstone. The other factors shed light in close cases. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. After digging deeper, it turns out there is a good deal of SIGCOV from the early years. It also appears to have not been so one-sided after all. E.g., here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 21 November 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!} 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Bowl (MIT–WPI)[edit]

Brain Bowl (MIT–WPI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking WP:SIGCOV in multilple, reliable, independent sources discussing this series in depth as a "rivalry". My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything. Article has been tagged for lack of sourcing since 2018 with no improvement having been made. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This rivalry has seemingly had some passing coverage over the years across multiple sources, but mere mentions don't lend to the subject meeting the WP:GNG. I'm happy to reconsider my vote however if sources are proffered, so please ping me if any are found. User:Let'srun 02:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – passing mentions at best, which fail SIGCOV. Both prestigious schools and I'm sure there's some campus pride when they play one another, but not enough coverage in RS to justify a Wikipedia article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Hyong-jin[edit]

Ri Hyong-jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 November 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!} 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy War (Merrimack–Holy Cross)[edit]

Holy War (Merrimack–Holy Cross) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable series. The teams have only played two games. There are other rivalries known as the Holy War (e.g. Holy War (Boston College–Notre Dame)), but this one is not notable. Cbl62 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google turns up other Holy War rivalries, but not this one. Can't find use of the nickname to refer to the series and it is certainly not used in the only reference listed in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:36, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this rivalry beyond wiki mirrors, along with sources covering rivalries for other schools by the same name . User:Let'srun 01:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of SIGCOV and no GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 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 MIDI beat clock. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulses per quarter note[edit]

Pulses per quarter note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTE and could be reasonably covered under an appropriate article of broader topic Pdubs.94 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Pulses per quarter note" article in Wikipedia needs to be expanded a little bit, in my opinion this page should not be deleted as it tells information about time division in midi files. 192.68.163.180 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Müller, Meinard (2007-09-09). Information Retrieval for Music and Motion. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-74048-3.

     The article notes: "The number of pulses per quarter note (PPQN) is to be specified at the beginning in the so-called header of a MIDI file and refers to all subsequent MIDI messages."

  2. Sweetwater (1997-12-09). "PPQN (Pulses Per Quarter Note, sometimes Parts Per Quarter Note)". Retrieved 2023-11-28.

     The article notes: "The timing resolution of a MIDI sequencer. PPQN indicates the number of divisions a quarter note has been split into, and directly relates to the ability of the sequencer to accurately represent fine rhythmic variations in a performance, or to recreate the “feel” of a performance. Older sequencers were capable of 96 PPQN (sometimes even less), which often resulted in a stiff “quantized” feel to the music (even if it hadn’t actually been quantized). Current versions can reach 768 PPQN or even higher resolutions, which is more than adequate for most musical applications. Note that the resolution of the sequencer is especially important at slower tempos. If your sequencer is limited to a lower resolution, one trick is the double the tempo of the song, then perform the parts in half time. This effectively results in a doubling of resolution."

  3. Loops and Grooves: The Musician's Guide to Groove Machines and Loop Sequencers. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2003. ISBN 978-0-634-04813-5.

     The article notes: "If a sequencer has a limited number of steps, which was always the case with analog and digital hardware sequencers, the concept of resolution becomes an important factor. In this context, resolution means the number of steps used to represent a note or measure. Resolution is a numerical value expressed as pulses per quarter note or ppqn."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pulses per quarter note to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added citations to three books, two of which (Anderton and Rumsey) have enough information that they should be considered SIGCOV. I have some concerns that the main body of the article (the long 2nd paragraph discussing feel) is basically original research, whose ideas are supported by the texts but not really in those terms. That notwithstanding, there's sufficient mention of this concept to merit inclusion. Oblivy (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge so it seems there is value in having this content remain. Does it make sense to merge with MIDI beat clock or roll up into MIDI? Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as article has been around since 2009 and barely squeaks by WP:SIZERULE guidelines. could easily be covered under MIDI beat clock Pdubs.94 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MIDI beat clock. Changing my vote. I've made the argument for keep but the merge target is really a good option.Oblivy (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Williams[edit]

Philip J. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it lacks sufficient reliable sources that are independent and secondary in nature, which are necessary to verify the content and establish the subject's notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines. The article currently does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and notability. --Muchasz (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note. This nomination was not logged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 21. I have done that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Greece, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Entirely copied from The Political Graveyard, which is not considered reliable as a source. Find no other mention of him across the internet. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing about this person found, it hits on articles about Trump for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like just a commemoration piece for (and from) a family member, created by an WP:SPA. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 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.

10-Pin Bowling (video game)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing my nomination as sources were found. (non-admin closure)‎ NegativeMP1 21:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10-Pin Bowling (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:N failure. I couldn't find any sources for it besides listings and the IGN review already in the article, and one review is not enough to satisfy notability. NegativeMP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very generic game with a generic title in itself that could apply to hundreds of games and proof of concept class projects. Nate • (chatter) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mobygames lists reviews from Video Games and Total!, but I was unable to find a scan of the Total! review. With these two reviews and the IGN review on the article, appears to meet GNG. Waxworker (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST. It's clear more reviews were found so I would urge the nom to withdraw the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 21 November 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!} 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Brook[edit]

Theatre Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This group has had 13 (sic) albums on the national Oricon chart in Japan, three of which are listed here, and thus this easily passes WP:NBAND. Their latest single went to #12 on the chart and stayed on the chart for over 3 months, as shown here. They also pass several other criteria of WP:NBAND, including #5, #6, #10, and #11 (some of these were already reflected in the English article). Please check Oricon when making these kinds of nominations. Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekimasu. Darling (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per clear sources provided by Dekimasu. DCsansei (talk) 13:51, 27 November 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!} 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Tucker[edit]

Keith Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Greatest claim of notability is a song that charted; I not that makes the song notable, not the musician. Fails the general and musician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Michigan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If deleted, then Keith Tucker (footballer) should be moved into its place. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero coverage found for this musician, should be deleted. Charting could indicate notability, but there are no sources discussing him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't consider charting at 170 on a mix album that notable either; tried to find mentions of him in .fr websites, still no luck. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oaktree b. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Kentucky football rivalry[edit]

Georgia–Kentucky football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While I found a couple passing references to a "Georgia–Kentucky rivalry" on Newspapers.com, I don't believe this matchup has received sufficient sustained coverage to qualify as a rivalry worthy of a stand-alone article. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not finding depth of coverage about a rivalry. I did find a passing reference or two. E.g., here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry has been a little something less than friendly."). And one of the sources questioned whether it was a top-level rivalry. See here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry certainly doesn't rank among the SEC's most heated."). Yes, the teams have played more than 75 times dating back to 1939, but other factors weigh negatively: (1) lack of geographic proximity/not border states; (2) not a competitive series (Georgia has dominated throughout the history--63–12–2); (3) no trophy or named series; and (4) lack of ranked matchups (2023 matched #1 vs #20 but that's about as good as it gets). Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No evidence that this is a notable "rivalry". glman (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This rivalry has had some passing coverage over the years, but mere mentions and questioning whether the teams are even rivals at all don't lend to notability. User:Let'srun 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all above. Both of these teams have real rivalries elsewhere, and this ain't it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG with lack of SIGCOV specifically describing these teams as rivals. Being in the same conference and having many previous meetings does not automatically make teams rivals. Frank Anchor 13:03, 25 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latham Park[edit]

Latham Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest that the stadium has much notability outside of Newtown_A.F.C. but possibly could be merged as an AtD JMWt (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. JMWt (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:GEOLAND, WP:NBUILDING. (update) There are independent RS cites on the page. Including BBC and County Times. I feel this nomination is floored. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain more. It is not a habited place or a natural feature and isn’t a historical building of national important so I don’t see how that guideline applies JMWt (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geoland and NBuilding encompass the aspect of being a geographical location and the physical building of the stadium. Yes you need sources to establish this and there are sources, the place has links to a historic figure of George Latham (footballer), which adds the historical aspect. You have a multi-use venue, so a redirect straight to the football club is a no. Upon a google search, there are loads of small news articles about the place. That all adds up, the two BBC sources in the article [15], [16] and with the other sources is more than enough for basic GNG. Your nomination is floored. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I dispute this reading of the notability criteria. Passing and insignificant newspaper articles are not enough for the GNG or NBuilding. JMWt (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Newtown A.F.C. - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Govvy.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babatunde Bayo Lawal[edit]

Babatunde Bayo Lawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A BEFORE gives me interviews from reliable sources thus failing the independent and in-depth coverage criteria needed to establish notability. Others are press releases. Nothing secondary or independent found. PS: Article was previously draftified by Jamiebuba. Reading Beans (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaning delete because most of the references are interviews which make the article fails WP:GNG. Ezra Cricket (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Heller[edit]

Ephraim Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An IP user claiming to be the article subject has requested deletion of this biography per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. According to the IP editor they have retired and "no longer want or need a profile". It was also recently blanked by a different IP. As nominator I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note to closer - as this is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request, if there is not a clear consensus to keep, the page should be soft deleted by default. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are affiliated, simple business announcements, bare mentions in discussion of the industry or company, etc. The "Businessweek profile" is a Bloomberg listing. Not finding anything better on google search, it all seems to be bare mentions in stories about the industry/acquisition of the company. I'm not seeing notability. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (reluctant): this seems even A7 speediable to me, and the sources fall short of GNG. My only reservation is that I wouldn't want to encourage the notion that simply because the (alleged) subject "no longer want[s] or need[s] a profile {sic} on wikipedia", we should get rid of it. Still, the article contains no evidence of notability (and I for one can't be bothered to go looking for it), so let's nix it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Looking at it, I thought "delete", but I haven't looked to see whether there are sources that could save it. But I echo DoubleGrazing's concern, and if it is deleted, I would want somebody to reply to the IP explaining that it was deleted according to Wikipedia's policy, and should never have been there in the first place. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reason not to comply with their wishes given the other comments. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Tangents: Mr. Heller and his father, Adam Heller should not be using Wikipedia (and our ranking in Google search results) for free PR, and I agree with the above: Wikipedia is not at their beck and call. If Therasense, Inc. existed, I'd propose redirecting there. FWIW, that company also appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT, so much so that the primary topic of Therasense is not even the company, but a court case establishing precedent in U.S. patent law (what would link to Therasense in Wikipedia, DuckDuckGo query). Similar situation for his other companies, SynAgile and AngioScore. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even disregarding the subject's request, it seems this biography shouldn't have been on Wikipedia in the first place. Mr. Heller's claims to notability are founding and/or managing a series of medical/pharmaceutical companies of which none have coverage on Wikipedia, and having filed several patents (which generally does not confer notability; anyone can file a patent). Reliable source coverage is practically nonexistent: he is mentioned in passing in several articles about his company or their products, or in coverage of his father Adam Heller's endeavours. I personally did not find any in-depth coverage of Mr. Heller himself, and see no reason not to grant the request to delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:30, 22 November 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures#2000 as a viable AtD Star Mississippi 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fearmonger[edit]

The Fearmonger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating this article for not having significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence or assertion of notability; this is not a Whovian completist Wiki, but rather a global encyclopedia.
• Delete - ideally it would have been useful to nominate all the episodes in this series, because the exact same thing could be said about all of them. There are plenty of blogs and fan sites about these programmes, but nothing that would help the subject meet WP:GNG. I can't see anything suitable as a target for a redirect. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures#2000 seems like a reasonable ATD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 28 November 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 Land of the Dead. Star Mississippi 02:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of the Dead[edit]

The Land of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating this article for not having significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Land of the Dead: I could not find anything that indicates that this audio drama has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, its title would work better as a redirect to a completely different work, as it is a valid search term. Very few people would be looking for the Doctor Who story, and the similarly titled George A. Romero film is probably what most searchers are looking for. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:14, 22 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Lemos[edit]

Yair Lemos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very poorly sourced BLP with no signs of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Appears to have only had 90 minutes of play time in 2011/2012 in the second level of the Uruguayan football league system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Seems like an open and shut case. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What basis for a speedy deletion? GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah this doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Giles[edit]

Ariel Giles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Highest level of play was the second level of the Chilean system and third level of the Argentina system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. However saying it is unreferenced is incorrect. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Gualdoni[edit]

Oscar Gualdoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Highest level of success appears playtime at the second level of the Chilean system and third level of the Argentine system. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. However, saying it is unreferenced is not correct. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 November 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.

University Heights (film)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as Cunard has located a number of reliable sources via Newspapers.com. Notability has been clearly demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Sock (tock talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

University Heights (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The lone source for this article is a university news site that doesn't even mention the film by name. I entered various combinations of the film's name and year of release and found nothing on Google, Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives. The majority of results point to the cities of the same name. Given that there do not appear to be any reliable sources available that cover the film, this article clearly does not meet WP:NFO. Sock (tock talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Cook, Linda (2004-06-24). "With 'University.' Bluebox reaches new heights". Quad-City Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "This contemporary tale is a look at a college campus and the people involved in it, including a philosophy teacher who struggles over the death of his wife and simultaneously grapples with a debt he owes to drug dealers; a student who thinks he may have found the girl of his dreams but isn't mature ' enough to leave behind getting wasted with his friends; a student determined to carry out a hateful act; and a teacher who struggles with his sexual preference. Some of the actors are fine in their roles, some are, well, less than fine. But standing out from among the performers is Jim Siokos as Tom Adams, an instructor who is in debt to drug suppliers. He's one of those rare actors who is so natural it's uncanny he's beyond good. Bluebox would bode well to use his talent again."

  2. Clark, Eric (2004-08-05). "Cutting edge: Busy UI freshman's film judged one of best at Hardacre festival". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Beck's latest release, "University Heights," will be screened this weekend at the 8th Annual Hardacre Film Festival. More than 70 films were submitted for consideration. ... A panel of five judges named "University Heights" one of the top films in the festival. The 96-minute film is about the emotional struggles of four characters on a college campus: a love-struck teenager with drug problems, an English teacher with sex issues, a philosophy teacher who owes thousands of dollars to a drug cartel and a racist student who realizes he hates himself more than anyone else. ... "University Heights" was shot digitally for $300 and features 55 actors and extras. Beck made the film with assistance from his filmmaking partner, Bryan Woods. Woods is a student at Scott Community College in Bettendorf and is also 19. The duo run their own production company called Bluebox Ltd."

  3. Burke, David (2005-12-07). "Bettendorf native wins film award from MTV. Bluebox Unlimited trailer captures judges' interest" (pages 1 and 2). Quad-City Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 27 August 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-27 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Beck entered the Bluebox film "University Heights" and Woods entered "Her Summer." ... In "University Heights," which was released in 2004, four characters' lives intertwine on a college campus. ... MTVu spokesman Jason Rzepka said. "The characters were intriguing and the trailer really made you wonder how the different strands of the story would develop. Of the trailers in the finalist round, 'University Heights' was the movie they most wanted to watch themselves.""

  4. Wiese, Darla M. (2005-12-07). "Dreams come true: Student filmmaking duo conquers MTVu contest". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Mr. Beck's "University Heights," follows the last days of four lives on a college campus and was created on a heftier $300 budget. Both trailers have won numerous awards in the past, so Mr. Woods and Mr. Beck were hopeful. ... "University Heights" was chosen for the grand prize by Hollywood directors John Singleton ("Boyz n the Hood"), Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen") Nicole Kas-sell ("The Woodsman") and online voters."

  5. Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-01-12). "UI freshman follows cinematic dreams. Student working on 13th film". Iowa City Press-Citizen. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Having already directed and produced a dozen short films, Scott Beck is now on his 13th, titled "University Heights." The Quad City native is shooting it primarily in Iowa City with friend Bryan Woods, 19. If all goes well, Beck will premiere the film in May. He plans to begin the heavy part of the shooting late this month. He finished the script in November and has since recruited a cast of more than 60 who will work for free."

  6. Kapler, Anne (2004-06-24). "Iowans' film opens Saturday". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Iowa film company Blue-box Limited will premiere its latest film, "University Heights," on Saturday at the Adler Theatre in Davenport. "University Heights" tells the story of four people on a college campus: a philosophy teacher who owes money to a drug cartel, a student consumed by racism and disgust, a teenager who hopes to fall in love but is troubled by drugs and an English teacher fighting his sexuality."

  7. Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-08-05). "Tipton's Hardacre Film Festival highlights independent films". Iowa City Press-Citizen. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "The movie was shot at several locations in Iowa City, including the UI campus, particularly the English/Philosophy Building and Mayflower and Currier residence halls, The Mill Restaurant and Tim Brown Bottle, among others. The film caught the attention of organizers of the 2004 Microcinema Fest in Rapid City, S.D., and was shown there in July."

  8. McLaughlin, Mark (2004-06-25). "Q-C filmmakers' $300 effort to debut". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "'"University Heights' is an examination of life and the choices we make," said Mr. Beck, who wrote and directed the film. Mr. Woods served as assistant director and producer."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow University Heights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I stand corrected! I don't personally have access to Newspapers.com, and honestly I'm not sure I would've thought to check it even if I did. Thank you for informing me of an extremely helpful resource I'll need to look into in the future and for finding those sources. Given the clear demonstration of notability, I've withdrawn this nomination. Sock (tock talk) 15:57, 26 November 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. It's snowing. ❄️ ✗plicit 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Wiki[edit]

Super Mario Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Repeated recreation of a non-notable topic, as proven from this Google search, this one, and this one (Further evidence of this at the article logs). Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. No reliable secondary sources about the subject, yet has been recreated several times. Liu1126 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT -- The subject is a non-notable fan website with no indication of notability, and it is highly doubtful it will become notable anytime soon. JTtheOG (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rip and read off the wiki's front page. Unless the creators can be bothered to actually write something else and source the wiki's notability, salt it. Nate • (chatter) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and throw away the key Self referential page that hasn't made any effort to be a page of substance. Salt it as well. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Wiki within wiki? Isn't that why they have Fandoms? Highly inadequate. dxneo (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Let it snow delete and salt. We have a wiki about the fandom wiki, but we do not talk about the wiki projects themselves. It goes against general guidelines. Besides, aren't any sources nor do I ever expect there to be. So yes, salt it. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt For completeness sake, checked Google Books, Google scholar, and TWL resources and found nothing covering this wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 04:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't appear to be notable. Cannot find any significant third party coverage that isn't other wikis or forum/social media posts. No one is talking about this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The only sources the article cites are SPS. No other secondary sources can be found; therefore, this article is not (and possibly never will be) notable. And what's a "salt"? Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Salting it prevents it from being created again. Its akin to salting a field so nothing will grow there in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are actually at least two secondary sources that contribute to notability and they're fine. I've added them to the article. The article is better now. But they don't contribute to notability to a sufficient degree.—Alalch E. 18:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT Of the 20 sources 9 of them are the wiki itself and 5 are other fan wikis.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:21, 25 November 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 Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#China. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Chunhua (ice hockey)[edit]

Liu Chunhua (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

stub on an unnotable sportsperson. sourced to a database. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and China. ltbdl (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOLY. China did not win any medal during these Olympics, plus I did not find any sourcing on this very particular character. There might be a passing mention in the Beijing News, certainly not enough for their own article. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Edit: They didn't win any medal for women's ice hockey. Conyo14 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conyo14 (talk · contribs) and ltbdl (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#China per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    gladly. ltbdl (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that's a better target. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both! Cunard (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Collapsing comment:

  Extended content

  Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Weiner, Jay (2002-01-12). "China's Town - Blaine, with its sod farms and soccer fields, is the perfect home for China's Olympic hockey team". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22. The article notes: "Forward Liu Hongmei, the ubiquitous commercial Swoosh on her uniform's shoulder, passes crisply to linemates. ... said Liu Hongmei, China's top scorer, who can speak English. ... Back home in northeast China, it was 4 degrees Fahrenheit, and snowing. ... Captain Liu Hengmei, 29, the daughter of a security guard and a city maintenance worker, spent 2001 in Winnipeg, learning English." "China in tough to keep up with the pack". The Hockey News. 2002-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22 – via DiscountMags. The article notes: "Player to Watch: Center Liu Hongmei, 28, is the Chinese women’s team’s answer to Wayne Gretzky. She was named China’s female athlete of the year in 1994 after scoring eight goals in just five games at the World Championship." Fang, Xuefeng 房学峰 (2015-08-07). "冬奥史话：冰花的绽放之女子冰球的故事" [Winter Olympics History: The Blooming of Ice Flowers: The Story of Women's Ice Hockey] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22. The article notes: "1992年，中国女冰首次参加世锦赛，19人的名单是： ... 刘红梅 ... 中国女冰有几位得到国际冰球界高度评价的明星球员，例如在1992年到2002年间效力于国家队的刘红梅，曾代表国家队参赛46场，进球27个、助攻17个，得分是44分" From Google Translate: "In 1992, the Chinese women's ice hockey team participated in the World Championships for the first time. The list of 19 players was: ... Liu Hongmei ... The Chinese women's ice hockey team has several star players who are highly praised by the international ice hockey community. For example, Liu Hongmei, who played for the national team from 1992 to 2002, represented the national team in 46 games, scoring 27 goals, 17 assists, and scoring 44 points." Wang, Jingyu 王镜宇; Wang, Jianmin 王健民 (2002-02-21). "遭遇严冬盼春天--从冬奥会透视中国女子冰球现状" [Encountering a harsh winter and looking forward to spring--A look at the current situation of Chinese women's ice hockey from the perspective of the Winter Olympics] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22. The article notes: "昨天下午依靠老将刘红梅的1粒金球2：1艰难战胜哈萨克斯坦队之后，中国女子冰球队以1胜1平3负、排名第七的成绩结束了在盐湖城冬奥会上的旅程。... 老将刘红梅忍着肩伤的疼痛不知疲倦地在对方门前寻觅战机，" From Google Translate: "After defeating Kazakhstan 2:1 with a golden goal from veteran Liu Hongmei yesterday afternoon, the Chinese women's ice hockey team ended its journey at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics with 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses, ranking seventh. ... Veteran Liu Hongmei endured the pain of her shoulder injury and worked tirelessly to look for opportunities in front of the opponent's goal." "金球险胜哈萨克斯坦 我女冰获冬奥会第七" [Golden ball narrowly beat Kazakhstan, my female ice skater won seventh place in Winter Olympics]. Tianjin Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2002-02-21. The article notes: "终场前４６秒时，中国队名将刘红梅在裁判漏判对方一次越位的情况下犯规，结果使场上出现中国队以３人对５人的不利局面。... 加时赛一开始，中国队又在以少打多的情况下坚守了１分１４秒。挡住了对方的猛烈进攻后，刚刚从“球监”中被解放出来的刘红梅在加时赛进行到１分３９秒时近距离射门成功，使哈萨克斯坦队“突然死亡”。进球后刘红梅激动地扑倒在冰面上，洒下了热泪。赛后，这位在本届冬奥会上为中国队打入３球的老将说：“我当时的感情很复杂。本来我们不用打加时赛就能取胜。进球之后我想，终于赢了，实在是太不容易了。”" From Google Translate: "With 46 seconds before the end, the Chinese team's star player Liu Chunhua fouled when the referee missed an offside call. As a result, the Chinese team was in an unfavorable situation with 3 players against 5 players. ... At the beginning of the overtime, the Chinese team held on for 1 minute and 14 seconds with less and more. After blocking the opponent's fierce attack, Liu Hongmei, who had just been liberated from the "ball monitor", successfully shot from close range at 1 minute and 39 seconds into the overtime, causing the Kazakhstan team to "suddenly die". After the goal, Liu Hongmei threw herself on the ice in excitement and shed tears. After the game, the veteran who scored 3 goals for the Chinese team in this Winter Olympics said: "I had very complicated feelings at the time. Originally we could win without overtime. After scoring the goal, I thought, we finally won. Yes, it’s really not easy.”" "Golden Goal Gives China 1st Win and 7th Place in Olympic Ice Hockey. Veteran forward Liu Hongmei's golden goal in the over-time awarded the Chinese women a 2-1 victory over Kazakhstan and a seventh place finish in the ice hockey competition of the 19th Winter Olympic Games here on Tuesday". People's Daily. 2002-02-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-22. The article notes: "Veteran forward Liu Hongmei's golden goal in the over-time awarded the Chinese women a 2-1 victory over Kazakhstan and a seventh place finish in the ice hockey competition of the 19th Winter Olympic Games here on Tuesday. ... Liu, who scored twice in China's 5-5 draw with Germany on Saturday, notched her third goal of the games with a quick slap shot amid a scramble before the Kazakhstan goal at 1:39 in the extra time, giving China the first victory in the eight-squad women's ice hockey tournament. ... the 30-year-old Liu said after the game. ... With 46 seconds remaining in the third period and China already short-handed, Liu was sent to the box for hooking ... who tied with Liu as China's top scorer at the Games, ..." "中国女冰急待援兵" [Chinese female ice hockey team urgently awaits reinforcements]. 中国消费者报 [China Consumer Daily] (in Chinese). 2003-02-13. The article notes: "盐湖城冬奥会后哈尔滨队中有包括守门员郭宏和锋线杀手刘红梅两位当家主力在内的5名选手退役，致使全队实力受损，" From Google Translate: "After the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, five players from the Harbin team, including goalkeeper Guo Hong and striker Liu Hongmei, retired, which damaged the team's strength." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Hongmei (simplified Chinese: 刘红梅; traditional Chinese: 劉紅梅), also known as Liu Chunhua, to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

  Cunard (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing and collapsing comment. These sources are for a different person, Liu Hongmei. I was confused by this edit, which had incorrectly added "刘红梅" to the lead but had correctly added "刘春华" (Liu Hongmei) to the infobox. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#China (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This is the only source I can find about the subject that provides more than a passing mention:
  1. Ci, Xin 慈鑫 (2015-04-13). "中国女子冰球输不掉的队魂" [The unbeatable team spirit of Chinese women’s ice hockey]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The article notes: "哈尔滨体育学院女子冰球队教练刘春华向记者表示。... 两个多月前，因为带队参加世界大学生冬季运动会，刘春华作为哈尔滨体育学院的教练，与中国女冰的这批年轻队员有过一次朝夕相处的密切接触，加上刘春华也是1998年中国女冰获得冬奥会第四名时的主力队员，她对现在这些年轻队员更有一种天然的亲近感。"

     From Google Translate: "Liu Chunhua, coach of the women's ice hockey team of Harbin Institute of Physical Education, told reporters... More than two months ago, because he led the team to participate in the World University Winter Games, Liu Chunhua, as the coach of Harbin Institute of Physical Education, had a close relationship with the Chinese women's ice hockey team. These young players on the ice have had close contact with each other day and night. In addition, Liu Chunhua was also a main player when the Chinese women's ice hockey team won fourth place in the Winter Olympics in 1998. She has a natural affinity with these young players now."

  There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Chunhua (simplified Chinese: 刘春华; traditional Chinese: 劉春華) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 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 Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Tower Radio[edit]

Strong Tower Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a network of radio stations due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Christianity, Illinois, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates, where the stations of this network are listed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates: while that might be a relative surprise with regard to the network itself, four of its stations have their call signs redirect to this article as it stands and those would be valid ((R to list entry)) redirects to the 3ABN list (four others do have their own articles, at least for now). In any event, this article was created at the tail end of the era where we were a bit looser on broadcast station/network notability than we are today. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to 3ABN as above: there are quite a few of these articles for religious radio networks in the United States which, like this one, do not offer any rationale for inclusion. This may the first of several that needs to go. Flip Format (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above, as not independently notable at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 26 November 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 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorpWatch[edit]

CorpWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources on the article, no sources from a search. However, it is frequently used as a source, see Newspapers.com for example. Would like to see what others think. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and California. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unless we can find more sources about them, there doesn't seem to be enough to keep the article. This [17], then this brief mention [18] Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This [19] ? Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless more work has been done to it. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 13:06, 26 November 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 14:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Clarity[edit]

Charity Clarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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