< October 25	October 27 >

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 [Ouzou Province#Districts]. Per discussion's decision Less Unless (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azzefoun District[edit]

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

Seems to be a typo/alternate spelling of Azeffoun. No sources; pretty much exact same coordinates. No content worth merging. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azzefoun redirects to Azeffoun, so it definitely could be an alternate spelling. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 00:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Tizi_Ouzou_Province#Districts. A banned user made hundreds of shitty one-line articles with no sources for Districts of Algeria. Arabic wiki says "The district does not have a legal personality, does not have financial independence, and does not have a legal or constitutional basis for its existence." so it's not clear that they need their own articles as purely administrative subdivisions. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, thanks for finding that out! I would totally be fine with a redirect close. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a district while Azeffoun is a municipality and it has several IW. Its normal for districts to have separate articles to settlements, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. The above-linked essay is unconvincing and of course not binding on anyone. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Zero content. Nothing to differentiate it from the other spelling. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Isn't it preferable, if as Reywas92 says the districts have little administrative function, to redirect to the town and commune of Azeffoun where there's an informative article rather than to a list of districts with no information other than names? Rupples (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the province has 21 districts and 67 communes. I don't know if this district consists of more than one commune, but if so it is probably not appropriate to redirect to one particular commune's article. Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 but the Azeffoun article is covering both the town and its district in the Geography section's list of villages. Is a reader looking for info. on the district likely to want info. on a list of other districts? I'd want to know what makes up this district. If we're not able to source whether there is one or several communes in the district, then just redirect to what readers are most likely looking for. When one clicks on Azeffoun in Google Maps, what I take to be the district boundary shows in a red dotted line. Roughly tracing this line with Google Maps distance calculator gives an area of 49 sq miles, consistent with the area stated in the article for the municipality of Azeffoun. Also, if the article is redirected to Tizi Ouzou Province#Districts all that will be shown is a name, unless it's decided to wikilink back to Azeffoun anyway. Your choice of redirect target is OK, but I think the reasons I've highlighted make Azeffoun a better one. Rupples (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic article and map show the district has four communes (each of which has many villages). It would be highly misleading for this district article to redirect to just one of those. It would perhaps be best if the province article listed the districts with their communes together rather than separately. Searching for Azzeffoun on Google Maps shows the commune boundary, matching the map at Azeffoun, while typing in "Azeffoun district, Algeria" does show the full district boundary. Your proposal is almost like redirecting Los Angeles County to Los Angeles. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Independently came across the other outline map showing the four communes and was hastily going to withdraw my suggestion. Your redirect target stacks up, so happy to go along with it. Rupples (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. // Timothy :: talk 17:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the concerns raised by the nominator. AllNotAll (talk) 18:38, 2 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 Mean Girls. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Wieners[edit]

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

Character shows no evidence of standalone notability and the article is mostly unsourced and written as fan blog. No sources with in-depth character discussion exist, all of her mentions come from sex appeal listicles. Character fails WP:SIGCOV and WP: NCHAR. Propose redirect as it can be described in a parent article, such as a list of characters. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the usable content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:GNG. But the nom should clearly report on their BEFORE. GScholar shows some mentions in passing, at minimum, so there is a chance something could be dug up to rescue this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete missing indicators of WP:GNG, which needs more than passing mentions. Redirect is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There can't be a Merge or Redirect if no one specifies a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mean Girls (2004 film) is a plausible merge/redirect target, this character is mentioned 4 times there. VickKiang (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mean Girls. I found no evidence that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are located. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 29 October 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!} 05:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Praise of Hard Industries[edit]

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

This article, and the linked (and exceptionally florid) one on its author, are the work of WP:SPAs, at least some of whom show signs of undisclosed paid editing. I don't see any evidence that this book is widely considered significant. A single book review does not, I think, confer notability. At best this would be a smerge to Eamonn Fingleton, though I am not sure that should exist either. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I found this article that might cite the book under its reprint title: [1], but it's paywalled. Otherwise nothing found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Ireland, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Galbraith, James K. (1999-09-12). "Made in the U.S.A." The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The review notes: "These are provocative arguments not very persuasively made. In Praise of Hard Industries is anecdotal, spurning statistics or other corroboration. It is overstated: American manufacturing isn't exactly dead, something that, reading between the lines here about Kodak and Boeing, one learns. The policy prescriptions (savings tax incentives, tariffs) are shallow."
2. Campbell, Duncan (2001). "In praise of hard industries: Why manufacturing, not the information economy, is the key to future prosperity". International Labour Review. 140 (2): 215–216. ProQuest 223996617.
  The review notes: "This book fits comfortably within the comparative-styles-of-capitalism genre, and many of its central observations are not necessarily new. The author's critique of the short-term focus on profits rather than a long-term focus on productive efficiency is a case in point. ... But to equate the information economy with the knowledge-based service sector alone, as the author implicitly does, is excessively narrow. Information and communication technologies have transformed the manufacturing sector itself - in fact, in ways lucidly described by the author, who nonetheless stops short of showing how manufacturing is very much a part of the information economy."
3. Buchholz, Todd G. (1999-09-20). "Bookshelf: A Fondness for Factories. In Praise of Hard Industries by Eamonn Fingleton". The Wall Street Journal. ProQuest 1798411839.
  The review notes: "Mr. Fingleton's "praise of hard industries" goes like this: Economics that focus on manufacturing are more durable, more dependable and better protected from competition that economies that rely on "soft industries" like, well, software, finance, health care and other services. ... But even if we accept Mr. Fingleton's assertions, doesn't the consumer benefit from competition?"
4. Sixel, L.M. (1999-10-10). "A sophomoric argument for manufacturing". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The review notes: "But In Praise of Hard Industries gives the impression that manufacturing is about as dead as a doornail and must make a comeback if the United States is to be great once again.The book, written by financial journalist Eamonn Fingleton, sets up a straw man - the service industry, which he refers to as "post-industrialism." ... Fingleton could be excused if he had done some original research to reach his conclusions. But he hasn't, relying mostly on previously published newspaper and magazine articles. Newspaper reporters, of course, are great sources of knowledge, but I was expecting something more original - and profound - from the book."
5. Taylor, Gilbert (1999-09-15). "In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity". Booklist. Vol. 96, no. 2. p. 201. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "For those dubious about the march of laissez-faire, Fingleton provides an infopacked argument with a nationalistic, Buchananite accent."
6. Farris, Dale F. (1999-08-13). "In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity". Library Journal. Vol. 124, no. 13. p. 108. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "Fingleton (Blindside), former editor with the Financial Times and Forbes, bravely challenges the current tendency to be awestruck by the information or postindustrial economy with this solid work on the many strengths of a manufacturing-based economy. ... An important work; highly recommended for all academic libraries."
7. "In Praise of Hard Industries". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 246, no. 31. 1999-08-02. p. 65. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "Bolstered by close analysis and chock full of intriguing examples of manufacturing triumphs and untapped opportunities, Fingleton's sobering report deserves close scrutiny by CEOs, labor leaders and policy makers."
8. Boaz, David (November 1999). "In Praise of Hard Industries". The American Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "In a book that cites as authorities cranks ranging from Germaine Greer to Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, it's no surprise to run across crank ideas from the mundane--like the Holy Grail of renewable energy--to the truly novel:"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow In Praise of Hard Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a further assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full length reviews in NYT and WSJ, and in at least one academic journal, with Library Journal / Booklist / Publishers Weekly to round it out, is a clear WP:NBOOK pass. Jfire (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the Houston Chronicle source from Cunard's list and another from the National Post. A lot could be fleshed out from those sources but notability should no longer be in question. BBQboffin (talk) 03:30, 31 October 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. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durwin Talon[edit]

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

Non-notable illustrator. Sources are not independent sigcov needed to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Comics and animation, Georgia (U.S. state), and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He appears at a few Comic Cons, but that's about the extent of coverage in Gnews, he moderated a panel in Vancouver for example. Nothing in RS we can use, what's in the article now isn't RS Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:Artist, an artist or other creative professional meets notability guidelines if "The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention." Talon definitely qualifies under this guideline. Already in the article are discussions and reviews of his work in Communication Arts (link), SilverbulletComicBooks (link 1 and link 2) and Multiversity Comics (link). In addition, his book Beautiful Scars was released by Archaia and distributed by Simon & Schuster with reviews in Whatcha Reading, Broken Frontier (link), League of Comic Geeks, University Affairs, Graphic Policy, and The Sonoma State Star. Finally, his book Panel Discussions: Design in Sequential Art Storytelling is reviewed and cited in a large number of places including this review in PressBooks, the Feb. 2015 issue of Print Magazine, The International Journal of Comic Art (Volume 6, 2004), The Use of Sequential Art in Literacy Instruction by Emilio Soltero from 2003, and The Everything Guide to Writing Graphic Novels from 2008. All of this shows Talon meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've checked several of the examples listed above as "significant critical attention" and sources like "Whatcha Reading" appear to be unreliable blogs, and sources like "League of Comic Geeks" and "University Affairs" only devote like a paragraph to this. This is not "significant critical attention." Elspea756 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I agree that individually the citations are not that in depth, but to me the citations combine to prove notability as per guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said what you believe about these sources, and it is already very clear that we disagree. Elspea756 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. That's how these discussions go. In the end consensus is reached and it is what it is. SouthernNights (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a broad claim to notability here, but I think the crux of the claim is on the significance of Panel Discussions: Design in Sequential Art Storytelling. There's little doubt that that book itself is notable based on the reviews and coverage linked above. What's unclear is whether the work is significant enough to meet WP:CREATIVE. In addition to the reviews above It seems like this work is pretty important among books about comics. Searching google books shows it in the bibliography of many books about comic, and it even has some citations on Google Scholar. It seems like there is a reasonable argument for WP:CREATIVE based on that book, likely augmented by their cover work for various comics, and game/card illustrations. A problem remains that the article is something of a CV, so I am currently stuck around very weak keep, which is barely different from just a comment. —siro χ o 05:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (very weak): sources just barely drag the article across the notability line. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 2 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 Bees IHC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1995–96 Bracknell Bees season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified tables of statistics do not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bees IHC, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 SGP3[edit]

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

This page, along with 2023 SGP3, is just a list full of redlinks with no sources establishing notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Catalogue entry, no evidence of significance, reception, etc. No pl wiki interwiki, references are just catalogue/database reports. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new competition in the Speedway world and it is extremely likely that the riders listed in this event will go on to become World or European champions in the future. Therefore the article page will become increasingly relevant over the coming years and references will increase significantly as the riders move up to the U19 and U21 age groups. Pyeongchang (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to predict the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search brings up some Reddit threads and a couple of WP:ROUTINE news reports; nothing that has any significance. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused as to why Wikipedia would not want an article on a sporting event that is covered live on TV in multiple countries throughout the world via Eurosport and Discovery+. It's a feeder competition for SGP and SGP2, in a similar vein as MotoGP3 and MotoGP2 is to MotoGP. It's an annual event for which there is already a main hub page. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs references to demonstrate its notability. I don't believe being on TV is considered notable by Wiki standards? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't demonstrate significance and searches by wiki users have not been able to find sources demonstrating significance that are not listed in the article. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information on the URLs has changed since the page's creation. I have now added the relevant news stories for each meeting to try and establish notability. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles require independent secondary sources with in depth coverage of the subjects. None appear to be here. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information on the URLs has changed since the page's creation. I have now added the relevant news stories for each meeting to try and establish notability. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fails GNG, sources in article and BEFORE showed routine brief news and database style pages, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth Above provides no sources to evaluate. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 SGP3[edit]

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

This page, along with 2022 SGP3, is just a list full of redlinks with no sources establishing notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unlike 2022, this one has at least some minor coverage in refs like this. I am not impressed and leaning weak delete for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new competition in the Speedway world and it is extremely likely that the riders listed in this event will go on to become World or European champions in the future. Therefore the article page will become increasingly relevant over the coming years and references will increase significantly as the riders move up to the U19 and U21 age groups. Pyeongchang (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential of notability in the future is not a good enough reason to establish notability now. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 12:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of SIGCOV in sources, which even then are limited to highly specialist publications dedicated to motorcycle racing. The link provided by Piotrus is a WP:PRIMARY reference, coming from the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme itself. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While some references are specialist publications dedicated to motorcycle racing, they certainly aren't ALL like that. WP.pl (sportowe fakty) is one of the largest news agencies in Poland, akin to BBC.co.uk in the UK. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are only to a general result page and are not articles demonstrating the notability of the race. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Sportowe Fakty must have switched the meeting reports to different URLs since the article was created. I have now added the relevant meeting reports to references section, which should help establish notability of the races. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:18, 2 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!} 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused as to why Wikipedia would not want an article on a sporting event that is covered live on TV in multiple countries throughout the world via Eurosport and Discovery+. It's a feeder competition for SGP and SGP2, in a similar vein as MotoGP3 and MotoGP2 is to MotoGP. It's an annual event for which there is already a main hub page. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same issues as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_SGP3. The sources mentioned here being from a significant source only are race results and not articles dedicated to the race. Minimal coverage not demonstrating significance. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles from Sportowe Fakty have now been added to the references section. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fails GNG, sources in article and BEFORE showed routine brief news and database style pages, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth Above provides no sources but a primary to evaluate. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 2 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 Tour of Romania. Daniel (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tour of Romania[edit]

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

The 2023 Tour of Romania was cancelled.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Anghelov (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Federația Română de Ciclism anunță reprogramarea Turului României pentru 2024". federatiadeciclism.ro. 28 September 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

Redirect Redirect the page to Tour of Romania. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cancelled events can still be notable, page would need to be rewordedYoblyblob (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear that it's not a cancellation, but a rescheduling into 2024 as it had already been delayed once and it was too late in the year. Best to keep the content for this page and rewrite it/move it once the 2024 details are clear. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you reschedule an annual event for the next year, it will be just the next event. Not that there will be both events next year. Andrei Anghelov (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this race is not an annual race there are year gaps between the races. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect the page to Tour of Romania. No need for a separate page. Low importance cancelled event. The cause of cancellation is not notable either. --Andrei Anghelov (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- This is not an annual event, meaning there might not have been a planned event for 2024, meaning this is a rescheduling not a cancelation. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tour of Romania. Right now it's a cancelled event that doesn't pass WP:GNG. If the 2024 event happens, then an article for that year can be created and this could maybe be redirected there. But we don't need this stub article until then, as all the keep voters seem to want. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tour of Romania. Subject does not pass the GNG as a cancelled event. While cancelled events can be notable, there is nothing suggesting that this one is. User:Let'srun 18:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a postponed event not a canceled event. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't pass WP:GNG. For all your pedantry on postponed vs cancelled, you've not done anything to try and demonstrate it passes WP:GNG, which is the thing that's actually required for an article to be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Pappas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, searching online primarily returned results about an unrelated actor who also does not appear to meet notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO - the references are not nearly significant enough to justify notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable footballer and per arguments above. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:38, 1 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizboy[edit]

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

Nothing from my WP:BEFORE; only pseudo-notable thing about it is that it was Nickelodeon's most viewed premiere in a while 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 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 Enforcers (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ox (comics)[edit]

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

non-notable comic character, no non-primary sources, and it's mostly a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for all the reasons you listed. None of the sources are WP:SECONDARY. I suggest moving the article for now until secondary sources can be found so that all WP:GNG can be met.

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: O in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:LOSE. This article has existed for 17 years and has yet to see any major improvement. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link has been corrected. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: O in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. You know how I was saying that the way you interact with others can be counter-productive? Jumping down the throat of anyone who votes a way you don't like does stuff like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this,this, this, this, and WP:PRESERVE. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source appears to be user generated, the second only lists his existence and nothing else, the third is only comics tagged with his name, and the 4th one is also user-generated. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enforcers (comics), the group both incarnations were members of and where they are already covered. None of the sources presented above are actually valid significant coverage from reliable sources, and searches do not bring up anything that comes remotely close to passing the WP:GNG. I haven't looked into whether or not the Enforcers themselves meet the notability threshold for fictional groups, but as long as they have an article, it makes much more sense for that to be the target for any kind of Redirect or Merge, as these characters only real significance in comics comes from being part of that group, thus it would provide the most context for anyone searching for the character. Rorshacma (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enforcers (comics) all this in-universe information can be covered in that article, and I'd much rather this be redirected to the team article than a huge list article.Rhino131 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Enforcers (comics). There is no significant coverage from independent sources to justify keeping this article. If the notability isn't there, there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE.-- Mike 🗩 20:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: O per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Non-notable chum. Llajwa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Normally a merge could be appropriate but this article has only primary sources as references. There's nothing to merge. --Mika1h (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to Redirect/Merge but there are two different Merge targets being proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Liz: if it helps achieve a consensus, I'd agree with Enforcers (comics) if BoomboxTestarossa and Rtkat3 would concur? BOZ (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to @Liz: and @BOZ:. While both brothers who called themselves Ox are members of the Enforcers, there are other characters who have called themselves Ox like the outlaw who is not mentioned and the member of China Force. If you pitch the idea to merge Ox to Enforcers, where will the other characters named Ox go? List of Marvel Comics characters: O? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He does have one more RS: [2] BOZ (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is just a plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enforcers (comics) per WP:ATD. Open to other targets and this can be worked out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above unless someone tells me which sources are reliable and meet SIGCOV. Sources mentioned above have been criticized and I AGFed that critique. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enforcers (comics) per above. // Timothy :: talk 21:20, 2 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 Wireless LAN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MDU Wi-Fi[edit]

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

Unsourced stub. Tagged for more sources since 2011, but no improvements have been made. No evidence whatsoever of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Internet. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if not quite enough for a standalone article, we could potentially write something about larger scale WLAN deployments not quite the size of a campus network (CAN), and Building area network redirects to WLAN currently also. I'm going to go with redirect to Wireless LAN (I don't see the point of going for a specific section for now). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 28 October 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 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shunde, China Furniture Wholesale Market[edit]

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

I agree with the template added almost a decade ago; this appears to lack WP:N. I appreciate it is difficult to come by sources for Chinese places, but it lacks reliable secondary sources. An attempt to find sources when translating into Chinese has also turned up nothing notable. Nonovix (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nonovix (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:GNG. I've also tried to find sources, but nothing turned up that wasn't them talking about themselves. Hasn't had any substantial contributions to fix the glaring issues with the promotional tone and lack of sources. I am aware that it is not warranted to delete an article just because it is badly written, but this one also has little to no sources. You can't polish a turd; no matter what, it'll still look icky. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Runs right up to the line on WP:PROMOTION, and doesn't meet notability anyway. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs independent sourcing, which appears to be absent. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 00:30, 2 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. per consensus in discussion Less Unless (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fatah members[edit]

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

Kind of a pointless list containing a random mishmash of Fatah-affiliated individuals, but with no clear rhyme or reason for inclusion. More appropriate as a category, which already exists. Longhornsg (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Military, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure I understand the "no clear rhyme or reason for inclusion" point here - it appears fairly obvious that it is a largely a list of senior Fatah members, most of which are notable, though the red links of course need clearing out. As a list of notable senior individuals within a very notable organization, there is a pretty obvious point to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 88+ Fatah-associated individuals with Wikipedia articles. Why are some included on this list and others not? Why are individuals without a page included on this list and others not? What's the inclusion criteria that would make this list meet WP:NLIST? What's the point of this page instead of just the category? There's also a strong argument to be made that the page should be blanked because nothing is sourced. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they are senior. Are you suggesting that you are unable to find sources out there in the world that provides a list of senior Fatah personnel? WP:BEFORE applies just as much to list deletion discussions as any other, and notability is based on the literature available out there in the world. Did you do this? For example here is a list of Fatah revolutionary council members, and in fact perhaps a title along those lines might help focus the scope, but lists of members of political bodies are plentiful. Is your next AfD nomination going to be for List of Likud Knesset members? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would appreciate keeping the discussion to the article and not the editors. But would point out WP:OTHERSTUFF and note a non-consensus AfD discussion for that article. In addition, that the article subject is discussed as a group and group inclusion criteria is discrete, satisfying WP:NLIST in my eyes. The Fatah article, on the other hand, does not. There are thousands of Fatah members, and there's rightly not a List of Republican Party members, for example. Happy to entertain a discussion about narrowing the scope of the article to the Revolutionary Council, for example, that is discussed as a group and is more defined as a possible list subject. Longhornsg (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the list into founders (a very discrete group) and other senior members that represent a less discernable grouping for the aid of this thread. Red linked entries were removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example source grouping Fatah founders specifically can be found here in an encyclopedic resource maintained by the Institute of Palestine Studies and Palestine Museum. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form. A list of Fatah founders and prominent early members has been found in this tertiary, encyclopedic source produced by the Institute of Palestine Studies, which puts that part on sound footing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes there is a category for the Fatah members, but still this list is necessary to present the members of Fatah with no page in WP. So it is helpful for editors. Egeymi (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict to those with articles rather than red links. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with the above, WP:CLN specifically allows for this type of article for navigation purposes. I think the red links should go even though they are sourced since this is a navigation list, not a normal list that needs to meet NLIST. The list appears to have a well defined inclusion criteria (what a concept, hope it catches on), and the list looks like it is adhering to the criteria. I just spot checked the list, not a complete check, but I think @Iskandar323: and @Egeymi: have looked at the list more carefully and would have raised an inclusion issue if present. // Timothy :: talk 00:02, 3 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 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non-notable run-of-the mill club, fails notability guidelines JMHamo (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing at the moment suggesting that they are anything other than a bog standard, dime-a-dozen, local cricket club. All the sources I could dig up were extremely local news, which suggests a failure of SIGCOV in particular. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG on any significant level. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:32, 1 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 23:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tyler[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a skier, and have added a reference, but it is a passing mention and not an independent source. There are no other references in the article, though there are some external links. I have not found anything else to add. I have looked at the person's list of results and I don't think he meets WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article was tagged for notability in 2009, but the tag was removed without comment in 2012. Tacyarg (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:20, 26 October 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 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood Town Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fails general notability, previously PROD'ed JMHamo (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single source article that doesn't really meet WP:RS. Can't really find anything else to justify this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:33, 1 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hus Gallery[edit]

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

No indication of notability. It appears that the enterprise was short-lived and I couldn't find any sources discussing it in depth, other than a 3-minute advertorial video. The article has been tagged for notability for 5 years. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Visual arts. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and England. Skynxnex (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This gallery appears to have renamed as 10 Hanover, judging from the two archived versions of their Gregor Gleiwitz show: [3], [4]. Under the name of the title of this article, it should be distinguished from the Paris-based Galerie Hus / Hus Gallery. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one of the references is marginally relevant to ascertaining notability, but aside from that seems to fail WP:GNG. --Uhooep (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not finding evidence that this art dealership attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 31 October 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 Solicitor General of Ohio#List of Solicitors General. Daniel (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Schimmer[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, "Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable". I don't see notability arising in any of the subject's other activities, and the sources are not sufficiently independent or in-depth. BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio. BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She received a BA degree at Princeton University, her Master of Philosophy at Cambridge University, and her Juris Doctorate at Yale Law School. She was Solicitor General of Ohio 2011–2013, and otherwise argued a case before the US Supreme Court in 2012. Her being floated for a spot on the US Supreme Court indicates she has an impressive legal background to even be considered. — Maile (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Her name is being floated for a circuit court of appeals, not the Supreme Court. Her degrees are impressive, but impressive degrees do not confer notability. I don't believe we count state solicitors general as automatically notable, and arguing a SCOTUS case is just a function of that job. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ would not consider the Ohio Solicitor-General position itself within the ambit of WP:NPOL so presumed notability does not apply. Other than the National Law Journal piece, I've not found anything else to provide multiple SIGCOV reliable sourcing for a satisfactory pass of the WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Solicitor General of Ohio is a "state/province–wide office" under WP:NPOL, akin to Ohio Attorney General. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per TJRC--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Djflem (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ipigott, Djflem, and TJRC: I'm not wedded to my delete !vote but would like to understand the justification for an WP:NPOL pass here. Not all state wide offices are intrinsicaly notable - for example, the Delaware director of animal services is a state-wide office, but I do not think there is community consensus that the proverbial dog-catcher is accorded presumed notability. The Ohio Socilitor-General does not sit in the Cabinet of the Governor of Ohio, and we've usually accorded state-level cabinet members presumed notability. The Ohio Solicitor-General reports to the Ohio Attorney-General. Certainly, I would accord presumed notability to the Attorney-General, who does not sit in the cabinet, but as chief law officer of the state is clearly a notable position. But the solictor-general is the deputy to the AG ... Where then is the dividing line for an NPOL pass? Is it offices that require approval from the legislature? (I believe the SG is not legislature approved, but appointed by the AG). We need some agreed dividing line, otherwise we've got an endless list of statewide offices to accord presumed notability (State Librarian of Ohio?). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking exactly this. BD2412 T 01:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ohio Solicitor General represents the entire state in all appellate proceedings, including befor the US Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court and federal appellate courts (generally the Sixth Circuit). It is of considerably more import than animal control. TJRC (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Two points, first, I'm not suggesting it's equivalent in status to animal control, just that the application of "state-wide office" in NPOL needs to have limits, it's not *every* state-wide position and the discussion is where to draw the limit that confers *presumed* notability. Second, you've made assertions for the notability of the office, for which we already have an article, which is not quite the same as indicating why every holder of the office should be accorded presumed notability. What about the Clerk or Reporter of the Ohio Supreme Court - by most of the elements you've chosen those offices would be notable - should we confer presumed notability on every reporter and clerk of a US state Supreme Court? (IMHO, no). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. As she was appointed to the position of solicitor general, I don't think NPOL is a suitable inherent pass here, as otherwise the secretary of chickens would be notable. Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court also does not lend to inherent notability. I do agree with Goldsztajn that there needs to be more clarity here. User:Let'srun 18:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject would not fall under WP:NPOL in my opinion as she was not a candidate for office. She was appointed and the position is not the same level as the attorney general. Even if it did apply, there are not enough reliable sources to create more than a few sentences without the use of WP:OR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Solicitor General of_Ohio#List of Solicitors General. State solicitor generals do not meet WP:NPOL as they are not a statewide cabinet official. The subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with the proposed redirect. BD2412 T 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect revising !vote, good ATD suggestion from Curbon7. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested target, as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Solicitor General of Ohio. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solicitor General of_Ohio#List of Solicitors General and an ATD. Fails WP:GNG and the position itself appears to be a deputy attorney general role that is at the discretion of the AG without any sort of confirmation from the state legislature or approval by the governor (let alone an elected position) so I don't think it would grant an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GPL93.Mpen320 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solicitor General of_Ohio#List of Solicitors General as an AtD, if sources are found the history will still be available, so nothing is lost. I agree that NPOL does not apply and do not think GNG has been met. If someone searches legal databases and comes up with SIGCOV, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 00:15, 3 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!} 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Chamorro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but unclear whether factors have changed sufficiently since the prior AfD, so bringing it for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. Star Mississippi 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has had a national team call-up since last AFD and there is more coverage as a result, see e.g. this. Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Young player wiht ongoing pro vcareer who ahs already been called up to national team and has sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk)

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!} 05:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K-9 Mail[edit]

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

Sources do Not Provide evidence that this app is notable, sources are all routine coverage. See related AFD Discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Email PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may not be as competitive currently, but it holds great historical significance as one of the first apps to give users a choice beyond the default for email on Android. I've added a couple sources from books in the early 2010s showing that this was an important application for email. On a less grounded note, Mozilla has recently acquired this application with a goal of revitalizing it. If the page isn't significant enough for historical reasons, I'd like to request that the deletion gets delayed for a bit (maybe a year?) to see if it regains a greater following. I think this would be preferable to deleting it now only to re-create it in the future when it is even more notable. Teeks99 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources in the article already, Linux Voice did a decent little review of it [5] in 2014. Was included in The Rough Guide to the best Android apps [6] and many more small capsule reviews. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changes since the nomination have added three additional refrences, there is definitely room for improvement but its also definitely notable. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 26 October 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 23:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeArrow[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ingrinder (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking WP:GNG - Found only two sources, both of which lack depth of coverage; I feel these do not constitute reliable sources nor display significant coverage. Ingrinder (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a bit of coverage but mostly of the press release type, so even within the techsphere not really notable yet. Skynxnex (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fully promotional only online coverage I can find is press releases no devolepement or reception info. Only citation is to its github.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, then delete Encyclopedically useful, but not notable enough. Erkin Alp Güney 05:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, and WP:NORG (via WP:PRODUCT). I similarly could not find any sources online that would contribute to the subject's notability. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 27 October 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Shelf Coffee[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails NCORP Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Companies, and Ohio. Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The original creator appears to have been an owner advertising the shop. Regardless, there are not any reliable sources that show noteworthiness here. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly being selected by the NBA does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV. Also fails WP:ORG overall. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:35, 1 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 draftify‎. Consensus below not to retain the article and various ATD's were suggested to provide opportunity to work content into various other articles, I think this may be the best option. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Muslim genocide during the Balkan Wars[edit]

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

Content WP:FORK of Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction. Purpose of creating it is to add "genocide" to the title without going through a formal move request, even though the literature does not describe these events as genocide. Khirurg (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, Christianity, Islam, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify This article is not a POV or content fork. Most of this content is completely original and is not covered in the page you mentioned. The page you're referring to is about the persecution of Muslims from the 19th and early 20th century, which briefly mentions the Balkan Wars. If you believe "genocide" isn't the right term to use, you can request the article to be renamed on the talk page. PS: This article probably needs more time in the draftspace because of issues pointed out by other editors. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction article, there is a tag stating that the article lacks focus on a specific event. So, the creation of this page (and others that fall under the same umbrella as the broader article) is warranted. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But couldn’t you just expand that article? GOODraspberries (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it would make it less clunky and pore precise and detailed to have a separate / main article covering it SamuelLion1877 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the article already lacks focus, so adding more information about each individual event would make the article worse and too long to read or navigate properly. Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm okay makes sense GOODraspberries (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see several references of dubious reliability. Some suffer from being written during or immediately after the conflict. The page's creator argues above that they were spurred to create it by a note on Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction which says the article lacks focus on a specific event. However, this new article is certainly not a solution—heck, it addresses the persecution of Jews in one of the few completed sections. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Jews are mentioned because the article was originally created with the name "Genocide of Ottoman civilians in the Balkan Wars," but was changed in good faith by another editor. If sources are dubious/unreliable, it would be more productive to resolve issues like this on the talk page instead of deleting an entire article about human rights violations. Yung Doohickey (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, or to simply delete pieces inside the article that are referenced with "dubious" references, not delete the entire article. If you spill milk on your kitchen floor do you burn down your entire house? SamuelLion1877 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an interesting thought experiment. Anyhow, this is not milk, but a policy violation. See nom for rationale. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well as I said, this seems like a fairly minor issue than be solved by simply renaming the article and posting in the article's talk page, not deleting the entire article. SamuelLion1877 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My idea, which I posted in the talk page of the article when this was first posted, was to rename the article to "Massacres of Ottoman Muslims during the Balkan Wars" and delete the section about Jews, since as Pbritti noted, that contradicts the title itself. Or rename it to "Massacres of Ottoman civilians during the Balkan Wars" and keep the Jewish section" dito SamuelLion1877 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do ultimately think we should revert back to the original naming convention of "Ottoman civilians" regardless of if it's called genocide or not because a relatively sizeable part of these events were against (outside of Islam) Jews and especially Albanian Catholics, who were targeted, similarly to the Muslims, on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however, these deaths are counted separately by the sources, there is already a very complete and polished article about the massacres of Albanians that took place during the Balkan Wars Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, the up to 120,000 or more Albanian deaths are counted separately from the 632,000-1.5 million Turkish / Pomak deaths. See my latest revision of the page, thanks SamuelLion1877 (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the article has a better chance of staying up with my revision, if anybody disagrees and has other ideas, feel free to let me know, SamuelLion1877 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is a content fork, as Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction only briefly mentions the events, as it is not the main focus of that article. This article also includes (and should include), as I mentioned before, killings of Catholics and Jews, making it include information outside of the scope of the article of persecution of Muslims, albeit, marginally. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand if the terminology "geocide" may be controversial to some, however, this can be addressed by compromising. Deletion is extreme and unnecessary. Plenty of sources are given, and almost all of them that I see are reliable per Wikipedia guidelines. It seems that some are claiming they are unreliable simply because they personally disagree with them, which is ridiculous. My idea, which I posted in the talk page of the article when this was first posted, was to rename the article to "Massacres of Ottoman Muslims during the Balkan Wars" and delete the section about Jews, since as Pbritti noted, that contradicts the title itself. Or rename it to "Massacres of Ottoman civilians during the Balkan Wars" and keep the Jewish section — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLion1877 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a content fork. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, draftify. There is too much overlap for mainspace, but we should figure out how we want to cover this material before outright deletion. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This is actually a very good compromise. I will admit, I rushed this article out when it was unpolished and mostly contained content from Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars (which doesn't really have this issue anymore thanks to @SamuelLion1877), because I had planned to expand upon it over time. I should've either created it as a draft or perfected it before creating it to avoid this issue. Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- The only substantive section is "Atrocities against Turks and Pomaks". The break up of the Ottoman Empire was in the nature of a civil war, in which villages were burnt and their population expelled. That section might be merged to Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction or become a separate "main" article (actually sub-article) to it. I expect that some people were killed, but not on the systematic scale to justify the use of "genocide", unlike wat the Ottoman Turks did to their Armenian and some other Christian subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Balkan Wars, specifically, were not in a nature of a civil war. I would argue it can fit the definition of genocide since most of the pre-war Muslim population was removed from the former Ottoman territories, this is unlikely to happen if the atrocities weren't systematic (like it is claimed in both contemporary and modern reports). This article ultimately should be its own thing considering the sheer scale of the events happening in the span of one year. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is a duplicate of Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars and Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. Some of the information here can be valuable, and it can be easily integrated into those articles.

Finally the title controversially uses the term genocide which would imply an intentional and systematic persecution of these peoples aimed at their destruction. I don't think that happened. I don't like the word genocide being thrown around lightly. Even if it is used by some scholars to describe these events it is defitinvely not the mainstream view. For this reason I would also support deletion to avoid having a redirect like this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply summarizes the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars to avoid duplicated content. Most of the information on this page is not in the Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction, since this article was meant to go into far more detail on these specific events, while including other victims other than Muslims, at least initially. "Genocide" has been removed from the title. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article has only existed for less than a week, give it more time to expand. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does offer some valuable content. However, its extensive focus on atrocities against Jews, Albanians, and Bosniaks seems rather repetitive and raises questions about its necessity overall. Integrating the content into related articles would seem like a good option. --Azor (talk). 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate as to how including Jews, Bosniaks, and Albanians is repetitive. Atrocities against Jews during the Balkan Wars are not mentioned prominently anywhere on this site, as far as I know. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed article: it seems the word genocide it too controversial, thus I have renamed the article to “massacres of ottoman Muslims during the Balkan Wars” rather than genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLion1877 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a WP:FORK of the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction. Jingiby (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is a POV CFORK dup of Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars and Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. // Timothy :: talk 04:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue, as I did before, that this article is not a content fork because Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction doesn't go into detail about the massacres in the Balkan Wars, but the persecution of Muslims in and around the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century to the early 20th century. This article was created to go into a greater depth in a manner that would be inappropriate for the aforementioned article (since the Balkan Wars is not its main focus). Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As POV fork of various articles: Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction etc.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 30 October 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McKenzie[edit]

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

This article puzzles me, and I don't think the subject meets any relevant notability criteria. She certainly fails WP:PROF. (I suspect the article is out of date -- I don't think she is employed by Durham anymore, and I'm not sure she's employed as an academic anywhere.) There is of course a bit of coverage regarding her arrest, but not enough to satisfy WP:PERP. Most of the sources are not secondary; there's too much use of sources authored by her. I don't think we need this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have changed my !vote based upon what others have found and added to the article. Delete per nom. Clearly, notability has not been shown. A search turned up nothing but a mention here and there about the subject or her children. Very few secondary sources found and not enough to show notability. −AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a few reviews of her Policy Press book. (1) Guillaume, Céile. Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. 66, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1049–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122354. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023. (2) link (3) link. Suspect it's not enough for an WP:NAUTHOR pass, but editors with more knowledge about academic reviews will have to chime in. Suriname0 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep her book has multiple reviews and a high citation count for this field (over 500) which means she is close to the bar to pass NAUTHOR or by an academic criterion. Taking this together with her political activism and her coverage there paints a picture of multiple independent pillars of notability adding up to a weak keep. Each by itself would not sufficient but taking together it seems they are. --hroest 19:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her book Getting by: Estates, class and culture in austerity Britain has 579 citations in GS and several reviews, and another research paper has >100 citations; there are also multiple independent sources covering her activism and political candidacy already in the article. ETA: She is still an academic, now at the University of Bedfordshire [7]. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: So, which notability standard does she meet, in your view? e.g., which component of PROF? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[For some reason your ping did not go through.] A mixture of WP:PROF by citations in a niche area, WP:AUTHOR by reviews, plus GNG by other coverage, but fundamentally how does it improve the encyclopedia to delete this article on an unsual case of a working-class woman in academia? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have updated the article to show her current status as senior lecturer at the University of Bedfordshire, which the nominator didn't find. Appears clearly notable - articles about her, as well as by, in The Guardian, etc. PamD 07:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My expansion of the article to discuss Lockdown Diaries was removed by the deletion proposer with the complaint that it relied on primary sources. Tagging with ((cn)) or similar might have been more constructive, in the spirit of working to improve the encyclopedia as opposed to being keen to get rid of this article. I don't think the Middlesex uni news item can be called primary, but anyway have reinstated the paragraph, added a new independent source and reused one which was used elsewhere. PamD 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added seven published reviews to her 2015 book (the three linked above and four more) and two more of a 2017 co-edited volume. If we had that many reviews in total of two authored books it would be enough for me. The "articles about her" in the Guardian appear to be routine election coverage of a type that would not appear to pass WP:NPOL. Which leaves only the "Cereal Killer" affair, which by itself would not pass WP:BIO1E. But adding it all together I think she squeaks by. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added her Scopus profile to her wikidata record: [8]; it provides further evidence of a healthy number of academic citations. Coupled with secondary book reviews identified above, and further coverage in WP:RS then I consider this a pass. ResonantDis_tortion 12:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If memory serves, the late DGG used to advise the following threshold for humanities/social studies PROF 1 test: at least 2 books by solid commercial or academic publishers. Getting By would seem to be one of these. However, McKenzie seems to be at least mid-career, but does not have a publication record that clearly places her above the average professor in this sense. Much of the article is about her political activism, for which she is not notable. I presume this article will be kept, which I think reflects the notability standards have eroded considerably over time. 128.252.172.17 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going by the book-review standard alone, this would be a borderline case, with considerations pointing in different directions. On the one hand, one of the books has well over the minimum number of reviews we'd ask for. On the other hand, the other two books are an edited collection and a co-edited volume. Having coverage of other things pushes in the direction of a keep. XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 2 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Pratap Singh[edit]

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

The only citation is a stamp. In short, we know no verifiable information about this individual except that the Indian postal services issued a stamp in his name RegentsPark (comment) 16:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is a postage stamp is there not presumed notability? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for having a photo on a stamp? I suppose, but we need something to back up the reason why, hence the need for extensive sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that a stamp is a WP:PRIMARY source and stamps are often introduced for political reasons. Based on the stamp, we can't say if this person actually existed, if he did, when he existed, and assuming all that, what he is notable for. Technically, all our article should consist of is the sentence Lal Pratap Singh is the name on a stamp issued by the Indian postal service.RegentsPark (comment) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you performed WP:BEFORE before nominating and found that he did exist and has coverage in reliable sources. What sources appear in the article, whether they are WP:PRIMARY or not, is completely irrelevant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, India, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: *It is not common in India to get your photo in stamp, only most notable peoples get it. It means that it passes first criteria of ANYBIO. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What I was brought up to call the Indian Mutiny of 1857 is now called the Indian rebellion or first war of independence, looking at events from an Indian POV. In deciding to put his face on a stamp, the Indian Post Office is presumably identifying him as notable. Without that, as the commander of a small military unit, he would probably be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable Worldiswide (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Trajkov[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NPROF. I am not sure being the ex-director of the Institute of Immunobiology and Human Genetics makes them notable but, at the very least, there should be reliable sources to substantiate his notability, which there currently isn't. Hence, their notability status is debatable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and North Macedonia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete His GS profile indicates one single highly cited paper which doesnt mention him by name as author (rather a consortium). I dont see how this would merit passing WP:NPROF#1; and NPROF#6 is also not applicable with the directorship of an institute. --hroest 19:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep his profile, this archived link (the link is currently dead) from the Institute for Immunobiology and Human Genetics in 2021 cites him as the Director of the Institute which fulfils NPROF#6. He is also one of the few people that practice Immunology in North Macedonia. Ivanavram (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivanavram: I thought the directorship might meet NPROF#6, but the institute is part of a university, not independent, so it is not met. Therefore, I am advocating to delete. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd agree that the citations of the position paper are not discriminatory in this context, which leaves top citations 85,62,60,52,49 -- respectable but probably not sufficiently exceptional in a relatively high-citation field. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence of either WP:PROF or WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, NPROF. I didn't look into the institute/position, because NPROF states, "any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." and the article and BEFORE didn't turn up anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to substantiate it, so NPROF is out due to lack of sources. BLPs require strong independent sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 3 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Cricket Network[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting organisation, has no jurisdiction over cricket in Europe which is the remit of the European Cricket Council, lacks any wider notability. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After revision deletion there is no way that this organization is notable at the slightest; the only source provided is likely promotional. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not noteable.--AAonlyA (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per HarukaAmaranth. This organisation has no governing remit over cricket in Europe. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - makes no odds if it "lacks remit" or "lacks jurisdiction", the criteria for notability and inclusion is being noted in reliable sources. That's the only point to discuss. I've been able to find a few sources that could be discussed for reliability including 1 and 2 and 3. I think there are probably more. JMWt (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is some sourcing, I don't believe there is enough here to suggest notability. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite some sources, the organization's lack of governing remit over European cricket, alongside insufficient evidence of notability, supports its removal. --Rodgers V (talk) 13:08, 1 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer Rocks[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page to show notability, and the subject just appears to be a feature on a map JMWt (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At very least this is a candidate for redirect, not deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formally moving to Keep or Merge. Coverage of minor geographic features is part of the gazetteer function of the encyclopedia. According to the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a "gazetteer function", no consensus has ever found that it does. Wikipedia no more has a gazetteer function that it does a dictionary function (not least because gazetteers are a kind of dictionary). FOARP (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really doesn't seem worth redirecting or mentioning in another article since we have zero coverage to establish WP:DUE weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you want to destroy a redirect? If someone wants to find information on this feature, they should be redirected to a source that will help them. Unless you are implying that the majority view is that these islands don't exist, "Due and undue weight" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) These are not islands, they are rocks.

2) Simply existing does not mean they warrant an article or even a redirect, particularly when the resulting article will not contain any actual information about them. Do we really mention every identifiable rock in a bay? No, because to do so would be entirely WP:UNDUE.

3) The sole evidence for their existence appears to be some photos taken from the air in 1956-7. I could not find anything at the location given in the article. FOARP (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE/WP:DUE relates to neutrality and has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Please stop using these alphabet soups without clicking through to see whether they are relevant to the topic at hand. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." (my emphasis). WP:UNDUE is not only about points of view, it is also about coverage of extremely trivial aspects of a much larger thing, such as minuscule rocks in a wide bay. FOARP (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are - at best - simple minor geological features that may be simple boulders sticking above the water some of the time, or not at all. Mentioning them in an article about a bay with an area of hundreds of square kilometres would be entirely undue. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it summarises what is said in secondary sources, it is not a nautical chart that needs to mention every single feature. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kibermanis[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a hockey player and political figure, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for hockey players or political figures. In hockey he only ever played at the WHL level, which is not a level at which a person is "inherently" notable enough for an article, and was drafted by, but never actually played for, an NHL team -- and as a politician he was only ever an unsuccessful candidate, and never held any notable political office that would pass WP:NPOL at all.
A prod was recently declined on the grounds that he has "many mentions in newspapers due to his political aspirations" -- but run of the mill campaign coverage does not secure the notability of an unelected candidate in and of itself, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. (Which means that if campaign coverage were all it took to give an unelected candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL in and of itself, then every unelected candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be rendered unenforceable and meaningless.)
So campaign coverage does not build passage of GNG in and of itself: a person who had already passed a notability criterion (either as a hockey player or by winning the election and thereby holding the office) can use their campaign coverage as supplementary support for fleshing out the article with background information, but a non-winning candidate who has no other preexisting basis for notability does not clinch inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of campaign coverage alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ice hockey, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he won the seat in the provincial legislature, he would pass NPOL, but the article isn't on that point. An Alberta MLA is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't win the seat, and wasn't an MLA. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with Bearcat. The subject's hockey career comes not within a light-year of meeting any notability standard, he doesn't meet NPOL, and no evidence of passing the GNG beyond routine campaign coverage has been proffered. And somehow this article's already slipped through the cracks for seventeen years? Ravenswing 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: But isn't the fact that he was initially declared the winner of the incumbent's seat by only 5 votes and the recount gave it back to the incumbent by only 3 votes worthy of note? The incumbent's career could have ended after less than four years; instead, it lasted 14 years. That said, I can't say that his hockey career alone would warrant an article. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the incident is discussed extensively in the Edmonton-Castle Downs article. It doesn't therefore follow that Kibermanis himself merits a standalone article, when it would just reiterate the same information. Ravenswing 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, people being initially declared elected by the media on election night and then found to have lost on a recount are not notable for that per se: the final certified results (in which he wasn't the winner) are what's definitive when it comes to NPOL, not the initial media call. While things like that don't always happen in every election, it happens often enough that it isn't special in and of itself. The recount can be addressed in the electoral district article and/or the BLP of the winner, and doesn't automatically require a BLP of the loser to coexist on that basis alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 31 October 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 Cinema Sins. I've listed Merge here as the content needs to be merged to allow a redirect, as the target article currently doesn't include mention of Wins. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaWins[edit]

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

Procedurally nominating for deletion as the page was WP:BLARred and the WP:BLAR was contested. I will note, that the target of this as a redirect Cinema Sins does not currently contain information about this channel. TartarTorte 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Article currently only referenced by two primary sources (both of which appear to be CinemaWins's YouTube channel). Should stay as a redirect. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Restore the redirect with added information. No independent sources. My solution is to convert the "Controversy and criticisms" section to a "Reception" section and give CinemaWins its own section. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's this source: https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/cinemawins-2015 110.175.62.4 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 1 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 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galin Bogdanov[edit]

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

Soccerway stub with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources that I could find in Bulgarian searches were Vitosha News, passing mentions in results listings, Gong, a single passing mention, and Blitz, a squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:42, 26 October 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 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Clark (chef)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability for this chef that died in the attack. Aftermath section is just people saying nice things about him, as you would at a funeral. Before his death, life appears rather routine. 20 years on, this appears as memorial, which wiki is not. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Terrorism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yiğit Koçak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 13:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, and Turkey. Kadı Message 13:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it fails WP:GNG. Sources are mostly socail media. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, no reliable source to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan White Foundation[edit]

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

Highly promotional article created by a now-blocked sockmaster; there is very likely a sock farm behind this with throwaway accounts making regular minor updates. Anyway, the organization does not seem to be notable at all, and the coverage reflects that--there's nothing but, at best, a few local notices. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable entity, called a "sham" by local authorities. [9]. That's all the coverage there is, the rest is about xyz person from the foundation landing in the country, or having done charitable things. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promo puff for a non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Gsearch and comments by Oaktree b and Vanderwaalforces Cacaochippy (talk) 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meathead (band)[edit]

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

No refs for many years on page. I don't see much that would suggest the notability criteria is met for a page on en.wiki - there are a few refs on it.wiki but these seem to be databases or encyclopedia JMWt (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Italy. JMWt (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danylo Safonov[edit]

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

None of the sources in the article give any indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My own Ukrainian searches found nothing better than Kramatorsk Post, a hyper local news source that only mentions him once. I have checked the Ukrainian Wikipedia article and all of the sources used are database sources, so don't confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 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 Long John Baldry#EPs. Daniel (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long John's Blues (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM.

PROD removed with "remove tag Long John Baldry was a very important person in the development of the British blues scene and all his recorded material is significant. It is also an element in the all-too-short British EP world"

But, notability isn't inherited. Must be shown why this EP is notable...especially since all the songs are found on a full length LP and the EP failed to chart. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well you have made an offer that I can't refuse. I learned long ago to stay out of the path of deletionists. I said my piece, you quoted chapter and verse. Now we wait for the tie breaker. Carptrash (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absoutely none of that was policy based. It was WP:ILIKEIT and certainly won't be taken into account by any good admin when it comes time to decide if this stays or goes. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long John Baldry#EPs: I thought I had found a good source with the numerous mentions in this biography, but it appears those are all about the album of the same name. I couldn't find much else for either, but I imagine whatever else might've looked promising was probably for the album as well and this EP just got nothing. Not surprising for this type of release, or for one which didn't chart at all. And @Carptrash, I'd just like to remind you that AfDs are not about vote counts and there are no tie breakers. It's a matter of Wikipedia policy-based arguments. If you want this article kept, you need to back up your case. If you really did say your piece, at the very least perhaps you could restate that here so it's on the record. Would probably be a lot more helpful than what you have provided. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldry was a integral part of the British blues scene that developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This EP contains songs written be Willie Dixon, John Lee Hooker, and Jimmy Witherspoon, all important American bluesmen whose songs helped form the backbone of the British blues movement. The EP was a product of the British EP era that only really lasted until the mid 1960s, making most of them notable. Packaging album songs on EPs was done in Britain, our EP article states, “In Britain EPs were sometimes used to repackage songs that had previously been issued on albums. The Shadows released EPs The Shadows No. 2 and The Shadows No. 3 both of which included songs found on The Shadows album. The songs from Adam Faith's first album were also released on three EPs, all of which had the same cover as the album, but listed the tracks on the top. The Beatles EP Twist and Shout contained only songs found on their Please Please Me album.” Oh yes, and I do like it. Carptrash (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the due diligence @ QuietHere, not sure if you are suggesting that the article should be kept or not. I do find it fascinating that The Shadows EPs that I mentioned in my last posting have now been nominated for deletion. Pretty good chance those are articles started be me as well. I will likely bow out of all these discussions, having more pressing things to deal with. Carptrash (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash you need to provide reliable secondary sources which confirm all these things you're claiming, or else it's all unverified original research. As I said above, I couldn't find any, and so I stand by my redirect vote, but if you can find appropriate sourcing, I may change my mind. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt @QuietHere that I will have any better luck than you. I feel that all these EPs (I think there are 5 up for deletion, some are already gone, 3 days later) are notable but we know how far that gets one here. I have more pressing issues to deal with, so if my wikipedia legacy ends up with 20 EP articles, (or whatever it ends up being), being deleted, so be it. Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is (opinion) only made stronger by the inclusion of niche articles that might not appeal to everyone. We have 6 and a half million articles, so they are not all for everyone. I believe (another opinion) that the British EPs era (ca. 1960 to 1967) is one of those corners and that this article casts a little light there. I also feel that serious editors should leave other serious editors alone. For those who just must have rules I will toss in Ignore all rules. Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need to delete. Keep the categories, remove the content and redirect until/unless someone can get sources to substantiate an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the source for much of the article. Carptrash (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long John Baldry#EPs: Fails GNG, NALBUM. No objection to someone finding or merging sourced content into a new section on the target, sourced content will improve the target; a redirect is all that is needed for the history here. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 3 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 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Kosov[edit]

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

Played a small part in 2 matches for Chernihiv in the third tier of Ukraine in November 2020 then was apparently released and hasn't been heard from since. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met and nothing found from reliable, independent sources in Ukrainian except for database sources like the ones already used in the article, which fail to establish notability per SPORTBASIC, which says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taylor Bennett[edit]

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

Journalist who previously did some fairly low level presenting now apparently works for Spotify. But this is not linkedin WP:NOTCV. Not notable enough to have a page. JMWt (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. JMWt (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, England, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of her interviews from Vice come up, but no sources talking about her. Routine position, working reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mykyta Hrebenshchykov[edit]

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

Played part of 4 games in the 3rd tier of Ukraine before disappearing. No evidence of WP:GNG. I found Suspilne, which mentions him once, and a bunch of interviews with a musician from Kyiv who shares the same name but goes by 'The Curly'. The footballer is from Chernihiv and looks nothing like the musician. If the musician is notable, then a separate article should be started at The Curly but I see no evidence that he is notable either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Pits of Luna[edit]

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

Nothing on the page to suggest wider notability for many years. Elsewhere I see a few reviews in blogs but nothing which would appear to meet the notability criteria for en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein, The Heritage of Heinlein, p. 54-55 and A search for depth in Robert A. Heinlein's short fiction, and, philosophical views on tragedy, 1945–1955 all discuss the short story to different degrees, I could find them in a short time. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work those, so maybe you can tell me if they are more than a mention. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that they are more than just mentions. Volumewise they are about a page, half a page and just short of two pages respectively. Contentwise they contain both plot summary and commentary. Only to a limited degree on the short story as a whole, more on the characters. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that sounds enough to me - unless anyone else objects. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sufficient to me, thought I can't see the second one. The third one is a doctoral dissertation and has quite a bit of depth. —siro χ o 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the listed sources, found in a very much non-comprehensive search, provide enough material to establish notability. Daranios (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly, all sources are paywalled or such, and I am too tired to look into them much. There are certainly mentions in several places, whether they meet SIGCOV is another issue. I do wonder if the nom (JMWt) did BEFORE on Google Scholar/Books, and regardless, I'd like to hear their analysis of the sources Daranios found. PS. The snippets I see in The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein look promising. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I can't access those but in good faith I'm accepting Daranios' assessment of the sources that they can access. JMWt (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: FYI, Wikipedia:TWL should give you proquest sources, and books can be accessed through Internet Archive library or Z-library usually. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a bit of quick expansion here. As others have mentioned, a good deal of the sourcing out there is paywalled in one way or another. I was able to pull some up and what I've found suggests that there is a lot more out there, as it references other people talking about the story and elements about it. A snippet came up here and this came up as containing the title as well, but I wasn't able to really access either. It's also given a lengthy look in this PhD dissertation. There's also a mention here but I can't see how extensive it is. Something of note though is that this is apparently one of the four short stories that helped him gain more of a mainstream foothold due, so it has that going for it as well. In any case, it certainly needs more improvement but I think there's enough to justify inclusion. It's not his most well-known story but it has received coverage and discussion in RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing holding this back at this point, meets GNG, article is in fine shape. —siro χ o 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Thanks for the rescue, User:ReaderofthePack. This is now likely eligible for a WP:DYK - go for it, I'll be happy to review it if pinged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you can go for it - I'm so sporadic at times I don't know that I'd be able to properly keep up with it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:27, 1 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unjaded Jade[edit]

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

Believe this person fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Education, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage with two articles in the Times, a RS. Rest are helpful. Plenty notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Oaktree b on this one. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep- I agree with Oaktree b on this, the article is well written and well sources with reliable sources that prove notability. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. Per nom removal of AfD template mentioned below. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoRoT-15b[edit]

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

This article is just a short stub having two sentences and one reference. So less! So I think it should be deleted or put into a draft. 117daveawesome (talk) 08:12, 26 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there appears to be enough sources to build out an article on this topic. Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recently added some more content and sources to the article, suggesting it be moved to CoRoT-15 if kept since it's now about the binary system and not just the brown dwarf. User:117daveawesome then moved the article to this title and removed the AfD template, so the nomination could be considered withdrawn. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A useful article with a detailed infobox with enough sources even though it's just a stub. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 15:30, 27 October 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 Lake Forest Graduate School of Management. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotchkiss Scholar[edit]

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

Notability is extremely suspect and has been tagged since 2020. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lake Forest Graduate School of Management: Not seeing notability outside the school, graduating at the top of one's class is fine, but the "award" doesn't seem to carry notability much past the graduation ceremony. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake Forest Graduate School of Management. It seems to be something that they do instead of summa cum laude for the highest graduates. Terminology that's school-specific can be mentioned in the school's article; it doesn't need its own article when it's better covered in a broader article that can provide more context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the school. No showing of notability. An honor at an individual institution is generally not important beyond that institution and there's nothing I've turned up that shows this to be an exception. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:40, 1 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 14:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Shift Records[edit]

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

Upon WP:BEFORE, I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV that make this notable. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 10:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Singapore. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 10:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Mixmag seems unreliable, the CNN source wasn't SIGCOV. Little else pops up Mach61 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. This is the only source I found but does not count towards notability. Delete per nom. Tails Wx 13:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Matches on night shifts, nothing for a record label found. Sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful, discogs in particular isn't a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 26 October 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. Merging and/or redirecting can be done editorially outside of this, there was no consensus for any specific action to be mandated out of this discussion but the door is definitely still ajar for it to happen. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hancom Office[edit]

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

Unsourced, likely WP:PROMO issue, no WP:GNG BrigadierG (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Honestly I'm torn, looking at the links given by siroxo with a machine translation, it seems like it has a few articles which are substantially about the subject, though I question how much of it has any encyclopedic merit other than just simply acknowledging it exists. The notability seems to be just "oh hey, this exists/new version of thing" without much more coverage than that. Honestly, I want to !vote delete but it seems like it meet the standards for being notable in itself. Maybe we can merge it into the company's page.
DarmaniLink (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

ZDNet Korea has a lot of coverage. [10] Hard to evaluate which individual articles are SIGCOV but it seems likely some are.
Seems to be a fair bit of coverage in books [11] Again difficult to evaluate

—siro χ o 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This seem like decent coverage [12], these are less about the software and more about the company but they provide context [13], [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hancom I dont think its notable enough to have its own article DarmaniLink (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

extremely weak keep if it's notable enough to come preinstalled, it could potentially have an article, but right now it's in a state worthy being merged. If someone wishes to improve it, ill change to a strong keep. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hancom. I agree with DarmaniLink above. I happened across this AfD randomly (not searching for Hancom at the time), but realize that Hancom Office came preinstalled on my Samsung phone. So it's already notable enough to be in my lap as I come across this. However, since the article is poorly written and the office suite doesn't garner much English attention on it's own, I think merging is the logical thing to do. Merging is also easily reversed in the future if the writing and references improve. — voidxor 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only sourced information into Hancom, which will probably end up being a redirect, but no objection to sourcing and merging. Checked kr.wp for sources and found nothing. // Timothy :: talk 02:29, 3 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 06:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel L. Malter[edit]

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

I've been unable to find any significant coverage of this individual besides this. There are plenty of auction listings and blog posts, but nothing substantial I could see to base an article on. Sam Walton (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Sam Walton (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not terribly well-sourced, not much turns up in Gsearch either [15], [16]. Those are about all there is, simple confirmation of existence. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verna Gaston[edit]

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

Article challenged for sources since 2009. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Cannot find good sources in GNews and GNews Archives. GBooks have mentions about her having some parts in films and a gossip article about her status as a sexy star but that's it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was also subjected to a failed prod. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:SEXYSTAR.-KH-1 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote should not be considered legitimate by Admins, because it points to the "Ignore All Rules" tradition, and even that requires a little more justification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, it was a joke. I couldn't really find any coverage in WP:RS, though the time frame and location makes it difficult. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice joke. Although I think I owe you both an explanation about its context. The Philippines is a highly conservative Catholic country back then so someone showing a bit too much skin raised too many eyebrows. What deem as a modest summer getup might is considered too sexy back then (Here's one of her "daring" pics (SFW by the way)). --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She had a long career and probably gained some notice as a sex symbol. But at least in English, all I can find are various lists of films that she was in and it does not appear that she was high in the credits or received reliable coverage for her acting. Even less can be found for her music. I don't think she reaches WP:SIGCOV, which requires more than lists and directory entries. I would be willing to change my vote if anyone can find anything in different languages. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ENT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 03:42, 28 October 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabankalan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binalbagan Catholic College[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2019. Fails WP:ORG. GNews only shows a crime where a faculty member was robbed and killed unfortunately. GBooks has no good non-directory hits. GNews Archives shows that SEA Games athlete Arniel Ferrera attended the institution but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to Binalbagan#Education--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but for me the correct redirect should probably go to the Diocese of Kabankalan, since the article mentions that the diocese now operates the school. (My take is that in principle, the private Catholic/parochial schools operated by a diocese or archdiocese should be redirected principally to the diocese's article to reflect the legal status of those schools.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirects proposed (and the correct one for the diocese is Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabankalan)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabankalan that operates the school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:36, 28 October 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 Aflac. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aflacts[edit]

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

Aflacts was an advertising slogan/campaign used by American insurer Aflac. This page mostly consists of details of the campaign in press release fashion, and it does not seem to have received sustained coverage. The one or two usable citations could certainly find their way into the main Aflac article. Deprodded in 2009 with citation improvements that are insufficient to carry the article today. 🦆 Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant facts into the Aflac article, rest isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 26 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Marco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of WP:INDEPTH, and no WP:LASTING. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable serial killer. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disturbing subject, but the deletion rationale is incorrect based on the article as it currently stands, note especially that this article is a biography, and LASTING and INDEPTH are part of WP:EVENT. Additionally, GNG is met with sources in the article. —siro χ o 08:04, 26 October 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 Crime in India (ATD). While I agree with Tollens that there isn't much of anything to merge (hence why I closed as redirect rather than m+r), the history is still available behind the redirect if anybody desperately wants to merge content. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drug abuse in India[edit]

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

ESSAY. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy of the 2012 Version of Crime in India. Nobody (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is tagged as a stub, and that is what it contains: basic info that begs for expansion based on lots and lots of readily-available WP:RS. I see no question that the subject has ample notability, and there are valid, verifiable sources already in the article. I am not prepared to to offer a specific WP:THREE for future expansion (will add to my to-do list), but gScholar provides a massive set of India-specific drug use/abuse scholarship. Data and research from Goa alone could make a good article. Was WP:BEFORE done on this nomination? I agree the article is in terrible shape, but this feels very much like a WP:DINC discussion. Once AfD is complete, I'll also recommend on the TALK that we rename to Drug use in India as a wider and more accurate term. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE isn't relevant to the nomination. It's an ESSAY and WP:SYNTH as it stands, not an encyclopedic article. And as mentioned above, it seems to be a copy of a very old version of Crime in India, which begs the question, why is someone re-creating old versions of articles? Additionally, as it's a copy paste, then it's also a copyvio as there's no correct attibution in copy-paste moves. Maybe it should be speedied instead. The best that could happen here is it's blanked and moved to draft space. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that there were AfDs that were not subject to the minimum requirements of WP:BEFORE. Can you point me to that policy/guideline, please? It would help me if you could explain how you see WP:SYNTH applying here, as the cited sources seem to support the text pretty clearly. What am I missing? Please also explain your reference to WP:COPYVIO (if copied from an old Wikipedia page, was that entire page copied from a source verbatim?) and WP:SPEEDY (I don't see any of the 39 criteria applying here). Right now, there does not appear to be a single policy-based reason for deletion, and it looks more and more like the only rationale for the AfD is entirely rebutted by WP:DINC (or perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're offering a red herring. The rationale isn't based on lack of sources, but on the lack of an ARTICLE. It's not my job to teach you how to read and understand policies here, and I explained the COPYVIO and lack of attribution via copy-paste move above. Your willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning won't help your "keep" argument. If you think an article is warranted, then rewrite it as an article WITHOUT an unattributed cut-paste move copyvio of an 11 year old version of another article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you misunderstood my questions. I was not asking you to explain policies; I am very familiar with them, and I quoted the ones that I feel are applicable. I will take your statements in order.
It is not a good article, but saying there is a lack of an ARTICLE is not helpful. The article exists, contains info on the subject, and contains three relevant, reliable sources cited in appropriate places. It needs a LOT more sourcing and plenty of work, but AfD is not for cleanup.

You have not actually explained your rationale for applying WP:COPYVIO, you've just kept using the term. COPYVIO is entirely and exclusively about copyright violations, which can only exist if this article (or the original) replicated text verbatim from sources. Can you explain which part(s) of the article misuse copyrighted information?

Phrases like willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning are unhelpful an incivil, but I'll address them (though I would request that you strike them to show that you are willing to assume good faith). 3a: The nomination doesn't say why the article should be deleted except the word, 'ESSAY'. If you meant WP:NOTESSAY, my question is not willful ignorance as the article doesn't seem to contain an editor's particular feelings about a topic. If you meant something else, please explain it. 3b: Can you please be specific on aspersions? I cast none that I can see, and I've reread my posts repeatedly search for such. 3c: Sealioning is asking questions that have already been answered, and I've asked my questions because they haven't been. You have not explained what copyright was violated, what was synthesised from sources, or which speedy-deletion reason applies.

At this point, and especially considering the tone of you preceding response, it seems like you're saying that you don't like the article and it should thus be deleted. That is opinion, not policy. Please explain which policies and/or guidelines require this article's deletion (preferably without personal attacks). Thanking You in Advance, Last1in (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems with Last1in's comments above. I'm surprised Balph Eubank (a.k.a. The literary leader of the age) has taken offense.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crime in India. I think there is no need of a separate article unless someone can expand this. Draftication is also a better option. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page deserves a different page. The Crime in India page cannot contain hundreds of crimes, and it will be confusing.Rkyadavdhruv (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - In its current state, it's only a single paragraph and can be easily merged into Crime in India. It does need polish, but there is reasonably coverage on the topic. If it were to be merged and someone later took initiative into improving and expanding the section, then it could be extracted into its own article. -- Primium (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Last1in- clearly a large, notable issue for India. Expand and clean-up, don't delete. I see no policy-based justification for deletion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This is a clear No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the tone is not suitable for an encyclopedia so it needs rewriting. It's only a stub so there's nothing useful to save, so WP:TNT. I'm sure it is a notable topic outwith of the general topic of crime in India, but it requires an experienced editor on en.wiki to turn it into a useful thing. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/draftify. Obviously notable issue but the article has nothing to salvage upon like what JMWt said. I don’t really want to make the cleanup argument, but the article needs a heck ton of work to reach a satisfactory quality, so I suppose we can WP:BLOWITUP. S5A-0043^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crime in India#Illegal drug trade. Not sure how this slipped past everybody, but the content is already there. That section is a nearly perfect replica of the article, just written better. Tollens (talk) 10:00, 1 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. Withdrawn based upon new sources; no 'delete' !votes to consider. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kovacs[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Holding powerlifting record would not make him notable... and currently he does not hold the record anymore, and in fact does not even appear in the entire list cited. This implies that these records do not stand for very long. In any case, fails GNG ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he was once notable as a record-holder, no longer being a record-holder does not make him non-notable. Once notable, always notable. Is he also known for something else? A Google search brings up several people with that name, but I don't know if any of them is the powerlifter. Sometimes combining an athlete's name and city in a search will find references from non-sports sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, holding a world record is seen as falling under WP:ONEEVENT and does not establish notability, then or now. This is especially true for a record which in and of itself is not notable, like a powerlifting records which regularly changes hands. If we had pages for every lifter who ever held a power-lifting record, WP would soon be full of people who were otherwise entirely non-notable. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:BASIC/WP:SPORTSBASIC. Given the era, there's going to be more in paper, but for now we should have plenty [17][18][19][20][21]. There's also db coverage which helps with verifiability.[22] —siro χ o 08:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article a bit with a few of these sources. There's likely more to find from the 2000s and 2010s as well, as he was still competing. —siro χ o 08:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the new paper sources found, appears ok. First few are local, but the last are more wide-spread. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - based upon the new sources found. They aren't overwhelming but enough imo to survive the chopping block. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:53, 27 October 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. WP:SK3/snow. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Histioea excreta[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES Hongsy (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why the nom says it doesn't meet WP:NSPECIES. It appears to be a validly named species, so it would actually meet that expectation. Unless there's been some name changes, disputes, etc. I missed, I don't see the article going anywhere. KoA (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine taxon, valid name; LepIndex is reliable, and other DBs agree [23]. Why would this not meet WP:NSPECIES? What's up with all these weird taxon nominations these last few days? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Meets WP:NSPECIES

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:16, 28 October 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. WP:SK3/snow. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yimnashana hamulata[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES as it doesn't have a valid name. Hongsy (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taxonomy is a little confused due to synonymy and subgenus (Tinkhamia hamulata, Tinkhamia hamulata hamulata, Yimnashana (Tinkhamia) hamulata hamulata...) but appears to be valid, and present in the sources we usually take as reliable [24][25][26]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea why Hongsy claims it doesn't have a valid name. As the BioLib entry makes clear, it was first described as Tinkhamia hamulata and then transferred to the genus Yimnashana, where Tinkhamia may be treated as a subgenus. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added information from the original paper that transferred the species from Tinkhamia to Yimnashana. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:NSPECIES with a valid name/sourcing, especially after Peter coxhead's edits. KoA (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Meets WP:NSPECIES

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:17, 28 October 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. WP:SK3/snow. No prejudice against any hypothetical move or redirects from the mentioned redlink or another name. Or a renom that actually looks plausible, for that matter. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hybolasiopsis abnormalis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES as it doesn't have a valid name. Hongsy (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, referenced and meets ToL guidelines. Per what source is this not a valid name?--Kev min § 05:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The species existed in terms of WP:NSPECIES, but given its synonym is also Xylotoles abnormalis[27], and it appears there was some renaming going on recently.[28] That source combined Xylotoles abnormalis among other names into Hybolasiopsis abnormalis. Maybe there's been more changes going on I couldn't find, but this is a case for a redirect at most to the current name, not deletion. KoA (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Species, if they are real and are cited to their original author who described them, are basically always notable. Species articles should not be brought to AfD unless there is a specific problem, such as the species is a hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Meets WP:NSPECIES

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move – This name appears to be a synonym of Hybolasiopsis trigonellaris, according to doi:10.1080/00779962.2008.9722170. Esculenta (talk) 21:03, 28 October 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 DRG Kleinlokomotive Class I. I'm not willing to close as merge as there are a grand total of 0 references for this content. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PKP class SM01[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub about a locomotive model. WP:GNG does not appear to be met, particularly given the infobox claim that only three models were produced. Perhaps this kind of stuff can survive on some list, but given lack of sources, hard to merge anything. Pl wiki (currently at AfD there) has a reliable reference but is used just for the weight parameter, not even present in our article. My BEFORE yielded nothing of use. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related to de:DRG Kleinlokomotive Class II, maybe a merge with a redirect? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouro Merge would require sources. Redirect would require mentioning this in the other article (with a reference, per WP:V). If this can be done, sure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DRG Kleinlokomotive Class II: Polish wiki only has one book source, and is basically a paragraph-length article. Merging to the main German locomotive article should be fine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
possibly merge to DRG Kleinlokomotive Class I (note difference) but at this point prefer TNT delete. The big problem: I don't know if I can trust any of the information in the article (the Polish WP article isn't an improvement). The class II article seems to be the wrong target as the pictured locomotive isn't like those in that article, whereas it is plausibly similar to that depicted in the Class I article. At this point I think starting over with decent sourcing is the best option. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Spider-Man enemies. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (character)[edit]

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

All of the sources are primary, with the only exception being a CBR article Industrial Insect (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Partial merge to List of Spider-Man enemies as WP:ATD-M—siro χ o 05:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep based on improvements made to article's sourcing; failing that a merge as suggested by User:Siroxo would be a preferable alternative to deletion. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the sourcing is a lot better, the fact most of the sources come from one website is not a good look. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as different sources have been added since. Higher Further Faster (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Siroxo's old comment. While there are more sources, they all seem to be trivial listicles, which don't constitute SIGCOV. The reception there is incredibly weak, coming down to about a sentence of actual commentary per article, which, while not bad when there's more significant coverage to add to, is not enough for a standalone article. I think some of it could be good to merge into the list, as there is some commentary, but I don't think it's enough to justify this. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999. The added references, discounting the ones that are pure plot summaries of issues/stories, are all the types of articles and sources that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability (i.e. "Top Ten" churnalism style lists from places like ScreenRant or CBR). Additionally, as stated, most of those sources do not even come close to meeting the threshold of being significant coverage, being a few sentences worth of actual commentary of the character. And then there are some such as this one, which is literally just a picture and the word "Boomerang", and this one, which is just the word "Boomerang" on a list of cards, which is pure WP:REFBOMBing. A merge is perfectly fine, but there is not the amount of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources to actually pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Merge target articles proposed plus editors arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. The most prevalent source in the article, Comic Book Resources and other Valnet sites, are not reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999. I think WP:PRESERVE could be brought up here. I think it is likely this character could eventualy be given a proper article but currently he is too obsucre. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three WP:RS for this character: [29][30][31] BOZ (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources seem to describe much beyond plot summary of how the villain works, his backstory, and some of his appearances. They don't really help Boomerang's case much. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Pokelego999 - all three sources are almost entirely in-universe description/plot summary. On top of that, none of them are particularly lengthy amounts of coverage, with the entry from the "500 Comic Book Villains" in particular not coming close to being able to be considered significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 06:49, 31 October 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. Closing this as Keep, especially as the nominator's opinion has changed. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Household energy insecurity[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. There is some good work here. However. the titled term is a multi-word specialized neologism not mentioned in the references for topics covered elsewhere. I.E. no indication of wp:notability for the topic. Suggest finding an article with a wp:notable topic to move this material into and thanking the editor for their work in creating this. North8000 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, original editor here.

Agreed that this page needs more work but this is an emerging term covered (and even defined for readers in-article) in many mainstream news articles as of late: Reuters, Yahoo, and Forbes, covering it as a topic recently highlighted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Regarding the title length, "Household" was added to distinguish it from national-level energy security. This topic mirrors food security, but for energy/electricity.

If the content is to be integrated into another article, I recommend something like energy poverty (though this concept doesn't fully capture the affordability aspect once people have access to modern energy sources) or Household energy use (though this page is even more sparse), or another concept/name such as energy cost burden.

(some more context: as an academic part of the Wiki Scientists climate program I had some mentorship on this first article of mine)

Thanks so much for your help! BusyBee03 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per the sources provided by BusyBee03. However, since none of those sources use the specific term "household energy insecurity" as far as I could see, maybe a change of title to "Energy insecurity (household)" or "...(individual)" might be a good idea. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally advocate a slightly looser standard than looking for an exact match on the title. If it's a distinct area covered as such by sources (including GNG type coverage in 1-2 sources) IMO that is enough, but IMO I don't see where this meets even that looser standard. When someone doesn't have the money to buy the important items, they either don't have them or are at risk of not having whichever ones they decide to not get/pay, which can be any one of dozens of items, including any of 2-4 different energy sources or the diverse specific needs that require those energy sources (heating, air conditioning, transportation, communication, cooking, bathing, learning, internet, information, telephone, lighting, water (if on a well) etc.) Wiki technicalities aside, I just don't see where it is a distinct topic to make an informative article on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the title as a phrase describing the topic of the article, rather than a "name" of something and certainly not as a neologism. It seems fine to me and the topic should not be regarded as lacking notability on account of the title. "Energy (in)security" is used in the titles of two references in relation to households and another reference's title includes "energy insecure households". Wikipedia tends to lack articles on topics compared with articles on "things" (especially people). The others commenting here seem to appreciate the article's contents and so do I. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating anything, just trying to help sort this out. My last post already agreed with you regarding not needing coverage by the name in the title. My argument is more that it is not a distinct topic. If somebody does not have enough money....lets say that 20 of the 30 necessities require one of the ~4 forms of energy that they purchase. What is the distinct topic, and is there coverage of it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments made by others above emphasize that some coverage of this should be attempted. It has the issues that I described above but maybe this could develop into a useful article, including exploring those complexities. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 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 Reverse merger‎ of List of Home and Away characters into this page following a renaming of this page to "List of former Home and Away characters". I'll implement this with a round-robin page move as suggested. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Home and Away characters[edit]

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

Following the merge closures of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Neighbours characters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters, let's discuss this (also note no merge closure at Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Home_and_Away_characters; the latter merge was less attended and I think drew just participants from WP:SOAPS and does not represent a project-wide consensus like the outcomes of discussions we get at AfD). Per my prior arguments, I think readers will be better served with a single list; division into current and former can be easily maintained after the merge. Note also that the size is not an issue (the lists are ~70kb and ~10kb, respectively). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's a WP:MERGE you're seeking then you don't need to start an AfD. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Please note that merge proposal was rejected by the SOAP project members. I still think it is better than deletion, but one list of characters per show is what we need to achieve, one way or another. The concept of "List of former Home and Away characters" fails NLIST/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other discussion, I was never a fan of the information being divided between two lists (this page used to be called "List of Home and Away characters" and include both former and current characters), but the information from this article needs to be preserved somehow. Skteosk (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect it looks like there's a consensus for a merge as an WP:ATD. This would still merit deletion given the insufficient coverage in reliable sources. But I encourage editors to look for focus on better articles, not more articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into one list. I would request the edit history of this list is preserved during that process. We need one "List of Home and Away characters" and no more. It would make sense to have the content from List of Home and Away characters, added to the top of this articles content. It fits best under the title of "List of Home and Away characters". Since this list about fictional characters, "former" anything seems a little in-universe and redundant. I can watch them in present time anytime I like. @Piotrus: - Would you agree? As for the above comment.. 180 RS sources are presented in the references.Rain the 1 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raintheone Sounds good to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please be specific about Merge targets. I thought it would be Merging this page to List of Home and Away characters but one of the comments said to take content from that article to place on this article so the situation is not clear to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to revert the page to its former title of List of Home and Away characters, add the current characters back on in their correct alphabetical placing (possibly highlighhed), and get rid of the page that took over that name. Failing that, place the current main characters in a section at the top of this page, in order of first appearance as on the other page, and have the former main characters listed below them as they currently are on this page. Moving the whole of the contents of that page over here, including the so-called current recurring characters (some of whom haven't appeared for years) and the limited information on future cast changes, seems like it could create problems and encourage the page spiralling out of control as people see it as a reason to add other minor characters. Skteosk (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skteosk, I doubt any closer can follow your description of what you would like to happen much less carry it out. We need one simple option (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify), most of what you are discussing involves editing and that is not the province of the AFD closer. The more complicated you make this, the more likely this will be closed as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Well...why say "Please be specific about Merge targets...the situation is not clear to me." if you just wanted a one word response? Skteosk (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skteosk, it's the way that the closing tool, XFDCloser, is set up...there is one action (Keep/Delete/Merge/Redirect/Draftify), and Merge/Redirect to one existing article. But maybe a different closer will take an interest in this discussion and be willing to follow more complicated instructions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support a merge as having a former and current page garentees that one will eventually become outdated.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Content saved, target improved, win win. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus to merge, and I was going to close it as such, but I have no idea how to implement the consensus that this article and its history should replace the other one - we can't combine the histories as the pages have existed and been edited in parallel at the same time, so how/where is the history of the other article meant to go? Can't just delete it, that's outside the scope of this AfD. Genuinely no idea how to proceed and implement this consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Softdelete will preserve history... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a WP:ROBIN move is the best technical solution. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 4 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 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Erez airstrike[edit]

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

Sourced only to a tweet that says Hamas claimed it launched this attack. Searching for sources finds no additional coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about events should not be created until WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT is met. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after over 72 hours there's not a single RS confirming it occurred. We don't have articles for every single claimed event by every belligerent, and we don't have articles for every single rocket attack, even ones that are much more notable and have numerous RS reporting on them. I don't think this article will ever escape having a single primary source which doesn't even support the claims found in the article. (Edit: Formatting)

OJDrucker (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable incident. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originally thought that a merge was possible, but it turns out that no sources could be found at all. Timothytyy (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Its contents Abo Yemen ✉ 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per OJDrucker, Hawkeye7, and Timothytyy, above. BD2412 T 03:41, 2 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!} 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McAdoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Greg McAdoo (2nd nomination)

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

Subject lacks notability (GNG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebAgentBot63 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the only RS I can find that talks about him, and it's routine and rather short [32] Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the source identified by Oaktree b, I could only find routine announcements regarding his leaving Sequoia. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. This discussion title should also be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg McAdoo given that there is no prior AFD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes Street[edit]

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

Article is not notable and is covered by Golden Green. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:34, 25 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or claim to notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its an OS settlement[33] so may be considered to be legally recognized but could be merged with Golden Green. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Golden Green - The Ordnance Survey is not evidence of legal recognition. The OS is essentially a map which is barred from proving notability under WP:GEOLAND. Being listed as a "other settlement" by the OS does not confer any kind of legal power or change on the "settlement" concerned of the kind that would provide coverage from which an article could be written. We might also ask what exactly "other settlement" actually means? Anyone asking to merge this article needs to explain what could possibly be merged from an article that is not sourced at all - even the location indicated in the article is an empty field. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as questionable settlement. I also note that the Golden Green article claims this place to be a neighboring hamlet. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 1 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games[edit]

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

WP:Not news. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Asia, China, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify Creating articles for each country participating in a major sports event is common practice as , see Japan at the 2022 Winter Olympics, Japan at the 2022 World Games, Category:2022 in Japanese sport... Technically the event starts later this month so you could draftify it but it a bit pedantic (you could draftify for at most 3-5 days and then the event will start & coverage will exist) Jumpytoo Talk 06:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. The problem isn't that it's an article about a country in a sports event, the problem is the only thing the article confirms is that, in fact, Japan is going to said event; i.e. Wikipedia:ROUTINE. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, the event hasn't started yet so you could draftify, but the event would start 3-5 days after an AfD closure so it would be WP:BURO to draftify it just to drag it back out like 5 days later when the coverage is created. Jumpytoo Talk 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with draftifying the article, (that's probably what I should've done in the first place), but WP:BURO is not a reason to do whatever you want. It's still WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist outside of draftspace. WP:Usual caveats Industrial Insect (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this point. Could perhaps have been created as a draft, but a 2 week window isn't really that long. —siro χ o 02:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is this article still being in deletion? Or is there anything that can be done so that this article is no longer in the AfD? Thanine Schagerl (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this article actually passes WP:GNG, and the same is likely true for most of the "X at the 2022 Asian Para Games" articles. This isn't the Paralympics, where most people competing are notable- here, almost everyone listed doesn't have an article, so we don't need an article that's basically just a list of non-notable people. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty certain we don’t apply notability to content within a list per WP:NLISTITEM, so the question here is whether there’s enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. S5A-0043^Talk 13:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't pass WP:GNG anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It's October 26 as I type this, so the event has almost concluded. There is coverage I see in a quick Gsearch, but no point deleting it as the event is almost over. It can pop back out of draft space once all the sources have been reviewed and once the event is over, which should give time to find them. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Oaktree. S5A-0043^Talk 13:55, 26 October 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!} 05:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PDC World Youth Championship[edit]

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

Not eligible for draftification due to its age. Has existed for over a decade without single independent reference. Searches do not show any in-depth coverage from independent sources. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 CDC Tour series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 PDC Players Championship series, and several more. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 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 Tolui. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altani[edit]

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

A 13th century violation of WP:BIO1E, not notable for more than a single event, the attempted kidnapping of Genghis Khan's son Tolui, her participation in which is disputed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, she exists, but what's here is basically a rehashing from whatever historical text that talks about her [34]. I can't see how this makes her notable. That's all that seems to be written, she grabbed the knife and saved the kid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tolui: With the very large caveat that I have no knowledge of Mongolian and thus am unable to search for this in Mongolian, I cannot find much coverage of Altani beyond what is in this article, which is rather humorously yet accurately described by nom as a 13th century WP:BIO1E. Having said that, this can probably be merged a bit more thoroughly into the Tolui article than it currently is. TartarTorte 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above is fine, or even insert this brief "anecdote"? into the Gengis Khan article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As stated above, doesn't need to be its own article given its so limited. TheBritinator (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not convinced there is any content here worth merging. It is essentially based on a single primary source (The Secret History of the Mongols). Redirecting to Tolui may suffice. (Did search for secondary sources like this article in JSTOR – essentially a passing mention which makes it clear the accuracy of the main source is contested.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:38, 27 October 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.